Xplode441

A link to an actual study please? Especially on that last part.

And University education is not mandatory. Latin was popular then because many texts were not translated. If you were going to make kids learn a second language, it would be in primary school. That's simply an unrealistic expectation. The second part is something you hear quite often, but truthfully, China is not going to be the far reaching global economy if they keep the track they're going. Most of the stuff they mass manufacture is of shoddy and unoriginal design. Except weapons surprisingly, they make some good firearms. And even German most German CEOs speak English. Science and Math have nothing to do with learning another language, and if anything making kids learn another language just pushes math and science further down the curriculum. They pack in as much learning as they can in school for kids, throwing more in there isn't helping the kids. And you can also look at places like China where cheating is rampant. http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2013/06/riot-after-chinese-teachers-try-to-stop-gaokao-cheating/ Besides, a lot of the people I've spoken to from an Asian country speaks at the most improper and broken English. I'd also like a citation for that second part. My mother tried to teach me French along with my schoolwork, and I just couldn't keep up with everything. I'm not even the average schoolkid either, I was in the top 10% for IQ, but I just couldn't juggle all of that as a child.

If it's not about immigration and about the world becoming globalized, then why use an American song? And I disagree that the US should embrace multiple languages as a requisite. It's not realistic to expect a child to learn three or four different languages in school while still keeping up with his other education. And English is the language of business and trade, so it kind of is the most important language to learn.

Aye, the United States is a nation of immigrants. But what you're forgetting is that assimilation is also a part of the immigration process. If you come over to the US and can't speak English, then you can't interact with a large portion of the populace. Can you call yourself a fellow citizen when you can't speak to your fellow citizens? Hell, I'm pretty sure you have to learn English to even pass the citizenship tests, unless they changed it in the last few years. I live in an area that got a lot of refugees from Vietnam after the war, and went to school with a lot of their children. Every single one of them spoke fluent English, and their parents spoke well enough to converse. Same thing with Mexican immigrants, a lot of them in this area. While their parents don't speak much English, their kids are usually well versed. People seem to confuse a melting pot as something that keeps cultures and languages separate but together, but it blends them. A lot of the Vietnamese parents I know are raising their kids to be bilingual, speaking Vietnamese and English. Frankly, the controversy is in that they weren't speaking English. I could care less that they're different nationalities or a gay couple. If the 70's coke ad were remade and played, this wouldn't even be news.

It's pretty well known that when going up against an incumbent that the odds are going to be stacked against you. You're literally told this even in high school government classes. The incumbent is well-known, has a better medium to contact the people through, is more visible, and the people are comfortable with him being there already. I'm guessing you were born in the Clinton years or Bush Sr. years and weren't politically active until around high school and after, so be honest. Had you ever heard of Mitt Romney before 2008 or 2012? I'd hope you'd heard of Gingrich being how he was pretty well known during the Clinton years, but Romney nor his dad were all that well known. Did you really not go over all of this stuff back in high school? Let me explain it to you in simple terms. You're driving down the road and you see a McDonald's and a diner named Jeffry's. You're pretty hungry and you know you're going to stop to eat, but would you rather go with the unknown presented to you, or do you go with what you know? Most people go with what they know and are comfortable with. This is why people tend not to order off the menu and such. Also, do you not understand what a hyperbole is? It literally is an exaggeration. Also, I never stated that the people didn't want Obama in office. I stated that as an incumbent he was harder to take out of office. You obviously don't disagree with me on this as the evidence you tried to supply fell against you. Your entire argument right now is based on you taking a hyperbole too literally. How does that make you feel? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pretty+much+impossible Feel free to browse other examples of similar hyperboles in order to familiarize yourself with it.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hyperbole Has this simply devolved into an argument of semantics?

I'm not here to say what candidate stands a chance, you seem to be misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm telling you why Christie wouldn't have won anyway despite these scandals. If you want my opinion on who'd make a good front runner for the GOP, then I'll tell you Marco Rubio (Would be Crist, but he's pulled away from the party). He'd be great at appealing to the blue-collared workers and college aged kids while still pulling a conservative base. 12 of 44 That's around 27%. Also Polk didn't seek reelection and was probably one of the best presidents we've had. He pledged to serve one term and accomplished all goals he set. So that's 11 of 44 That's 25%. Doesn't exactly discount what I said.

Because it's impractical from a realism standpoint and because it's time and money spent on the game that could be put to better use somewhere else, like hiring Bethesda better writers.

I'm speaking in terms of Presidential elections. That's why I never mentioned local or state elections. If you're going to look into local or state elections, then it's more complex than a pendulum. People tend to see more results for themselves on the local and state level which solidifies their political choices on those levels. It's pretty much the difference between micro and macroeconomics. This is the reason why you'll see states that are fairly blue in terms of local and state politicians even go red during Presidential elections. As 2015 draws closer, you'll see what I mean. People haven't seen much impact of what Obama's done, so they decide that they'll need to look elsewhere to see results. This is the basis of the political pendulum theory. People see Hillary and they're not reminded of the Clinton years, they see another liberal candidate coming right after we just had one that isn't super popular right now. The reason you saw Christie hitting home runs was because he was being polished up to be the front runner, same reason you see Hillary doing the same right now. People aren't seeing the gears running in the background and are just seeing the results, it's hard to explain this to you without confusing you as I did earlier. It's like the Wizard of Oz with the GOP being the wizard and Christie being the projection cast. They haven't announced that he's their man, but it's obvious that he was going to be. He was being pushed through the news media in stories of him being such a good moderate and a Republican. The people saw him as the front man and they got behind him because he's not the front man the Democrats were pushing. I feel like that last bit was very redundant. As I said earlier, you could see this happening in the 2012 candidate runnings with the people jumping around on who was their favorite GOP candidate. inb4; but if the political pendulum is real, then why did Obama get reelected. Short answer, because it's pretty much impossible to knock an incumbent President out of his spot.

There is simply no way to decrease the national debt while keeping people happy. Now as you're asking me, I'd: Eliminate our standing army and cut future defense spending by 3/4 Work on the deportation of illegal workers Remove the minimum wage Decrease gas taxes Cut the corporate tax rate by 1/2 for companies that maintain more factories on the US mainland than offshore Cut foreign spending by 3/4 Eliminate most of the bureaucracy surrounding medicare and medicaid and get the paperwork required for hospitals down to a single sheet in order to help them cut costs of healthcare Place a cap on interest that can be accrued from loans to 5% End the federal reserve, place the responsibility and accountability of printing capital back to the US Congress No more interest on student loans Deflate the artificial price of university education That's about all I can think of off the top of my head.

You incorrectly assume that Christie's popularity was in him being a moderate. No, it was in him not being Hillary. It's basic principle that the US shifts favor between Republican and Democrat. It's always been this way. 2008 saw a shift towards Democrat after people were left unsatisfied with Bush's presidency. 2014 is seeing a shift towards Republicans after people are becoming unsatisfied with Obama's presidency. This is where that boost in third party comes into play as it's a prime example of the people becoming disillusioned. You can also see it in the 2012 elections where the favored front runner for the GOP was switching every other week until the people finally "settled" with Romney.

Chris Christie had no chance of winning anyway. He's too moderate. The GOP has been under the belief that the only way to have a chance at the election is to put up a moderate candidate. They're avoiding pandering to their own base by putting up a strong conservative and instead trying to pull voters from the "left" spectrum by placing in a moderate. This is considered the sound strategy, but you can't go too moderate or you alienate your base. This is why we are getting break off groups of paleo-conservatives and tea partiers. These people will tend to lean more independent rather than moderate in local and state elections and be rather put off in Presidential elections. Third parties are rising in the US and it's because people are seeing that there is no real dichotomy between democrat and republican. If you spent any time on the internet, I'm sure you saw Gary Johnson and Ron Paul supporters and even now with Rand Paul supporters. It's because they don't fall into the paradigm. They don't just tow the party line. Of course though, It's foolish thinking to believe any politician to be honest. It is their profession to pander.

New custom race for all merchants. Just need to model out a new nose for them.

lel, I'll see what I can do. Give me some time to do it and test it. As I have work tomorrow, don't expect anything immediate. I don't upload my work to Nexus so I'll PM you if I get it solid. Also, I think the random encounter thieves that try to mug you should be switched as well, so I'm going to take the initiative to do that as well.