If anybody knows who Ann Coulter is, you know she's some sort of crazy republi... no calling her a republican would mean that I'm calling every republican a stupid hick. No I can't do that, because I respect both sides to a certain degree even though they are equally as flawed. You know where I'm heading with this do you, well ok... but for those who do not know her I will list out a couple of her books: Treason: Liberal Treachery From The Cold War To The War on Terrorism, Slander: Liberal Lies About The American Right, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must): The World According To Ann Coulter, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They Would Be Republicans, Godless: The Church Of Liberalism. Now considering when Bill Clinton has stepped down, you can calculate how long it took to write each book. Now quality is on the y-axis and time is on the x-axis. Any person who took grade 5 math should have mastered graphs, and the point in this case isn't even in the graph. That is hilarious. How long did it take to write 1984, that many years? Good God! How long did every Stanley Kubrick movie take to film? How long did it take to make Meet the Spartans? Maybe a week of writing the script. It was a piece of sh*t.

Back to Coulter, apparently each of her books achieved New York Best Sellers' list, but don't worry; it doesn't prove her ability as a writer. Know why? Every book is a best seller somewhere, especially in New York. Even Lou Dobbs has a best seller somewhere up his ass. The problem with Ann Coulter is that the only people that enjoy her are the same people who believes liberals are nazis and atheist and agonostics are spawns of satan.

Here's proof that she's an idiot, she believes that America won the war in Vietnam and Canada helped with it. No joke. Here's where people think I backed myself in a corner, but I am fuuly aware that some Canadians went there but independently not representing our country.

Here's more proof that she's has no right to open her mouth, she's a frequent guest in FOX; along with Mark Levin. Great job, you just proved your view of the world is worthless. Also she cited a Seinfeld episode and a joke to attempt to "strengthen" her arguement. Maybe (here's a theory) she is pandering to her fans, you know, idiots.

If anyone is remotely aware of the mass effect sex problem, you know that I'm quoting Kevin McWhateverhisnameis and is escape from obcurity (Thank you Penny-Arcade) by **** Mass Effect, while he was with no dought in the middle of eating lobster with a fine pino noir and his best friends were enjoying it with him and... I lost track with this. Anyways there was this one great moment on FOX News where this "author" join in the beating. The other being interviewed asked her, and this made me laugh so damn hard:

-Have you played the game?

-No I have not.

I'm sure everybody can appreciate the fact that she just shot herself in the foot with this. Before this interview, Kevin McWhocares had backed out after he saw dozens (by that I mean hundreds) of people bashing the hell out of him, he backed out and crawled back into obscurity. Saddly for this woman, those gamers were still there and she slowly moved away from Bioware. But she still took a beating when her new book was bashed by those gamers. Saddly for her, she can't ask if they read her book because it wouldn't matter if they did because no matter what, these people are came for blood and they will get blood.

Now this does not yet incorporate with my hatred for FOX, so listen to me FOX, YOU GOT OFF LUCKY YOU BASTARDS BUT SOON I'LL BE COMING FOR BLOOD (not literal blood you idiots).

Anyone who actually watches FOX News and thinks it is credible journalism should watch Outfoxed, and if they still believe it's credible, I will track you down and knock some sense into your head by smacking upside the head with a 2x4. Same goes for CNN and MSNBC to a lesser extent.

How the hell are people supposed to make decision with morons like FOX telling you certain people are racist, moronic, communists; specifically liberals, every liberal. I have nothing against promoting certain peoplel, afterall they invite people to do it But if hosts like BillO'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Brit Hume do it, why bother bringing people in. FOX is infamous for its destruction of journalism and pure contempt for the democratic party. Even the term Fair & Balanced is a lie because all they do is trash the liberals for hating America. Hell, FOX is also the one who created the idea that "If you disagree with the president (who in their case should be republican) you hate America. Please do the world a favor by boycotting FOX News.

It isn't just FOX news that I dislike but CNN as well because of three specific people there. Wolf Blitzer since he's an ass, Lou Dobbs since he has his own warped and idiotic agenda (more on that later) and Glenn Beck because he's an **** The big problem with American newsmedia is that it decidesthe future of the America or as they would put it the free world. They use patriotism (nationalism) to convince people that what is being done isn't wrong, you should agree with the commander in chief even though what he is doing is questionable (Straight from the mouth of Rupurt Murdoch). Or maybe the oposite. American news always have their own agenda, even if they are reporting news, there is always a theme to what is reported. For example: Man gets killed, not enough police budget, army soldier runs away from draft into Canada, the overall opinion of the war is negative. Anything can be spined to be something else.Presidential races especially are the worst, not just attack ads here but certain things will be changed into what they want, shortening a quote to make them look stupid, change the meanings of certain words; anything to turn something to their favour. It's dirty politics, where politics should not be.

That's enough of that. Why I hate most people in FOX, Lou Dobbs and Glen Beck is a story that will be saved for another time.

In light of the big political chase, I want to point out two things, the news coverage of Clinton's emotional breakdown Ron Paul's future along with his supporters and the media's role in deciding who will be the new leader. Now being a non-american, I only have a small understanding of the change that will effect the free world. If you noticed I used careful wording in that sentence, words like "American" "Change" and "Free World" are used all the time in news and political debates. These words actually affect people and have achieved the rank of dangerous words under a certain context. That and the infamous "Patriotic" "Terrorists Against the Free World" "Communist China", these words scare people to change their views believe it or not, and are often used to attack other people for no other reason than being a formidable opponent in the political ring. Just remember that.

With that under the way, has everyone noticed that in the news; they have the "Hillary Breakdown" (that's actually what they put in the headlines this week) as a thirty minute segment, no joke. Now I cannot imagine why people could actually think this is bad someone actually said "This just shows how weak she is, do you think that a person who cries should be the leader of the free world". I actually want to smack each person that believes that over their head with a lead pipe, but that's just me. It's ridiculous to believe that this choke-up actually matters to people, its like thinking being French is a bad thing (they're the reason you had democracy so early in history). I think the choke-up shows she's human, and believe it or not, people complain that she's a monster. It's ridiculous to think of such idiotic ideas, and what does it mean anyways? What do you people want!?

Just to throw my view, I support CLINTON for the Democrats, I support MCCAIN for the republicans, and I also support Ron Paul's ideas. Do I think Ron Paul will win the primaries? No I do not think so. He has great presence, I won't lie, but I will say this ONLY ONCE SO IT WILL BE IN CAPS AND BOLD. RON PAUL IS TOO LIBERAL TO BE A REPUBLICAN AND IS TOO CONSERVATIVE TO BE A DEMOCRAT. HE'S A LIBERTARIAN, OR WHATEVER THE PHRASE IS... HE'S NOT TRADITIONAL. PEOPLE LIKE TRADITIONALISTS, IF HE WANT'S TO SHOW HIS THOUGHTS, HE WOULD HAVE DONE BETTER AS A DEMOCRAT TO BE HONEST, BUT NOT BY MUCH.

There we go, my hat is now in the political ring. But I'm worried about his supporters, they really love the guy to the point where I cannot see it. When Ron Paul doesn't win, they might not vote at all, because they cannot compromise from what I've seen. They need their voices heard but once he's has lost the primaries, they might just shut up and continue to stay shut. But to the few Ron Paulian's that will vote, they will most likely vote liberal since they want the best for our (your) troops. I wish they will have a contingency plan for when the time will come.

Part 2 later...

Two thing to talk about, killer movies and EA and Canada (Rock Band for those unaware of the problem). These are the two things that pissed me off to no end. Let's begin.

Killer movies, you'd expect Sweeney Todd (forgive the mispell, irony) or just great movies right. Not the same meaning in my eyes, killer movies are movies terrible enough to make one contemplate suicide. You think, "Snipzor youfoolish sociopath (I donno) how can a movie make one want to kill themselves, sure some movie are crappy but not that bad; not even plan 9 did anything to my views of life." That is a good point but Ed Wood's Plan 9 from Outer Space is one of the most entertaining films made. Terrible enough to laugh at. To strengthen my arguement, I will tell a story. During my last year of high school, my friends were excited to see the movie Date Movie, a titanic piece of **** (which was the exact thing I told them) they were excited. I tried to warn them but they had made up their minds. On monday, because it was the weekend before, they said I was right (I didn't even see it, yet anyways) and from that point they would not see a movie unless I gave my opinion (it worked the same with everyone else actually). Recently, I had taken it upon myself to watch this "filim" (sarcastic spelling to make fun of it) and I became sick with myself. Last week, I watched Epic Movie and I wanted to kill myself.

Now, the reason for my suicidal thoughtswas the fact that it was advertised, it did well in the box office. Now, I'm very cynical with the human race, but holy crap, it scared me. I asked, are people really this stupid more than I thought, I'm a human andI consider to be fairly intelligent (Lazy too) just like the supposèd majority of the population but it's much worse than I thought. No more on this movie and cynisism on the human race, it scares me.

Now on the issue of EA and Rock Band, in CANADA PEOPLE, USA IS **** BUT WE HAVE THE WORST OF IT. I'm against EA and theirattempts to make a monopoly of the video game entertainment blah blah blah. This time, I'm not touching EA, its not their fault this time. Now, just to remind everyone, I'm a Canadian, and more specifically a Québécois (we speak french). There are language laws here in Canada (which screws every province but Québec) that now reaches out to video games. If there are Canadians that are pissed off about Rock Band, blame Québec like I always do. A little bit of info on Québec, stop signs say ARRÊT (which is stupid because stop is both an English and French word, there is no purpose to change something that is okay according to what you stand by). What does this have to do with anything?EA must take the time to translate into french is a possibility but how can that be done since the game is about songs. For once I will not prosecute EA but instead Québec for its cause in the delay of Rock Band. But EA isn't going to be left alone completely, they did make the mistake of not making enough copies of the game for North America. They did not meet the demand with the supply they had.

Who ever has played any good time travel game or even watched Doctor Who, have you ever thought about the different time splits in one series. Now you either believe in the time paradox in which the universe will end if broken, or the Back to the future philosophy (yes it had a philosophy). The time paradox is the situation where it reverses the need to go back into the past and no matter what you do you cannot stop the event. For example, if your friend gets killed and you go back in time to stop the event but fail because it is enevetable. If you do stop it though, the universe will collapse because you have broken the laws of time and space. This scares people because it is the no win situation, but the win situaton is scarier since it boggles the mind.

The Split in the timeline is the idea that by changing the fabric of time and space you split the current timeline and effect the fork in time and space. The split is the creation of a new universe, more than one infinite area and then you take into consideration that it might not be the only one created. You manage to save your friend but in the other split, you and the friend are gone. Don't even manage to think about the other splits because that would kill the brain.

The first Back to the Future had a good story and had followed another principle, one timeline and infinite amount of changes. A happy ending, if you haven't seen the movie stop reading and watch it. I'm serious go now! I don't want to spoil the film but there is another formulae to this whole unrealistic time travel story. There is a point to all this, but Back to the Future must be considered for later.

In games or movies, they attempt a time travel motif but don't pull it off perfectly. Such as the Zelda series, there are many paradoxes any way you look at it. Movies even try but fail because they pick the wrong situation, Deja Vu picked the single timeline but still has a happy ending, it doesn't work. When twelve monkeys was made, they had successfully pulled off something near impossible. Why do movies and games not pull this off? Because they try to have great gameplay overa great story, which is okay but not consistant. Greed can do alot to originality, like destroy it.

If I could put all my extreme hate about EA in words, this editorial would be 100 pages long and that doesn't include fine detail. We all know why EA is evil, not just one reason. They try to buyout the best game publishers with an objective to monopolize gaming, they rehash the same games with the promises of new features while they remove the features that made the game great. The online gaming that lags and misses the very much needed tournaments, and I will not mention the easily hackable online system.

I was playingthe FIFA 08 demo, and I was so embarrassed to be playing that game. It insulted my intelligence in every way for playing it because I was lured into thinking "This game isn't like every other EA game, FIFA was always good unlike MADDEN or TIGER WOODS. They wouldn't screw us in every way like they always do, will they?" Oh the irony. They screwed up a series that was okay to begin with and messed it up beyond repair. I will not review FIFA 08 for fear that the fanboys will kill me, I won't even play the entire game because it would be a waste of time. This goes the same for every other series that they have made.

In this new chapter of sub-cultures, there are always antagonists and EA is the new villain, it used to be LJN but they never had a chance in hell to make a good game. But with EA, they do have the chance to make a good game because of all the money they have.The money theycomes from sports fans who love the (insert series name here) series, they are unable to see past all the glamour of the athletes and new promises. Forget all the other games they make because they do not come close as a fraction to the money they make.

I believe the new game they are making is Army of Two, if people cannot understand that this game is a clear rip-off of many games (Gears of War, Kane & Lynch...) then they are official fanboys. Is this a problem, yes and no. I never liked Gears of War that much but seriously EA, this is weak even for you.

EA is a company that needs to die out. They buyout other companiessuch as Maxis, with clear ideas of taking over Ubisoft.If this is not bad work ethic, I donot know what is.

When I got Bioshock, I beat it within two days. Now, I'm not the only one who has done this, most people have, butthey have been calling this game short. This is anything but true, because this game is revolutionary. A game is not considered short if you play a game for two days straight. What is my point? Well I'm glad I asked.

If you are unaware ofthe amount of time that passes by, then that game has done something only great books accomplish. Breach the connection between you and time. I thought I rushed throughBioshock; but I realized that I was playing for days straight and hadn't realized it.

Please take into consideration the time spent, not the days passed.

So they both have armor, they both move like cheetas, and they will kick the living crap out of you. But just these similarities make people compare while they are different series. I'm no Metroid or Halo fanboy (even if I do prefer Metroid) but it gets annoying when people attempt to show that one is better than the other.

The thing with both series is that there is some element of mystery, something that we don't know about each character. We don't know who Master Chief is and we don't know how Samus got to be like she is(at leastI don't know). But if you do compare the series, mention how Metroid has made the risky leap from 2D to 3D and still remains amazing. Also how Halo is a multiplayer masterpiece. While doing so, people should stop mentioning the two together because Metroid has no multiplayer (except in hunters) and Halo has never been2D (unless you believe Marathon is part of Halo and 2D series).

I prefer Metroid because it was the greatest NES, SNES, and Gamecube game while halo was (to me) was only "another shooter" and it laked pure variety. Flame me all you want, I'll say all I want.

I was playing Madden 08 just now and I just now realised that its the same PIECE OF ******* **** that I played last year, I say this because I have been playing this game for 8 DAMN YEARS!!! EA JUST TRICKS IDIOTS INTO BUYING THE SAME CRAPPY GAME THEY HAVE PLAYED FOR YEARS. I asked myself, why don't they just do online uptades every year? BECAUSE THEY ARE A BUNCH OF MONEY ******* ASSES. What's worse is that we pay money for this only because there are "New Additions" when it turns out 2K has had them since 2004.

I will say that 2K made better football games because they are completely different every year and still manages an Average Score of 9.7 because they were revolutionary.

EA introduced Gang Tackles this year, 2K had it since 2004. EA apparently brings in new things but negglects to say that 2K has already had it for years. Go back and play 2K football even I love it and I don't like football.