eodx9000

http://thecable.fore..._back_the_draft (I didn't know where to post this, so I posted it here.) On the one hand, I don't think anyone should be forced to enter into any association. On the other hand, by bringing back the draft, there could and should be a huge spike in wariness for war as most people would have to think twice about their own children and even themselves and that could potentially cause us to finally withdraw from the middle east (or so I could hope).

Yes, I know how "law" works. That doesn't make it right, though. It may not be "fair" to you for me to refuse to associate myself with you for whatever reason, but it's not any less "fair" than for you to use force in making me cooperate with you. However, at least my refusal of association does not prevent you from moving on, whereas the moment you've chosen to use force only prevents me from moving on. You also may think it's not "fair" that I'd not give someone a dime of charity, but the idea that you think you can just force a dime out of my fruits of labor is not any more "fair" either. Likewise with the previous, I had not prevented the person from going elsewhere, but your use of force has prevented me from moving on. In both cases though, the idea of fairness is relative except that you would use force on me and not the other way around, all because of your moral beliefs. What Really Happened - Pearl Harbor

Oh the DHS had defined terrorism and terrorists since it was created. Pretty much anyone that disagrees with the government by now, the DHS can call a terrorist; even the founding fathers themselves have been called terrorists. I even know a few people who have been and are on the watch list. But hey, if we were to go by the classical definition of what a terrorist is, then that'd just convict the government itself for all the terrorist acts it performs (like the TSA itself).

Then you have not been paying attention to my use of quotation marks, but that's like most people in general anyways. Every single one uses violence to force people into complying with something that is a moral or relative issue. Franklin D Roosevelt issued trade embargoes against Japan from middle eastern oil prior to Pearl Harbor, left Pearl Harbor wide open for an attack, and was racist towards Japanese people. Furthermore, Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamato knew of the consequence of attacking Pearl Harbor and remarked about how they awoke the sleeping giant shortly after the attack started. Intellectual property laws also use the threat of violence in order to enforce something relative. Like I said, I used quotes. To be blunt, I gave you the ability to disassociate yourself. Just like on the right, I'd be accused of calling all Republicans conservatives despite that I give them the same ability. But as for me, I see no progress in the willingness to use tools of violence outside of self-defense and objective offenses.

I run my game on max settings and the only times I get CTD are with mod incompatibilities.

That poor ass, you should feel totally ashamed of yourself!

Am I the only one that feels like just when you use the command, the shadows around your character become darker for no apparent reason? Even if I use tcl to move up in the sky, it feels like as if the shading is intensified around the character. Or by any chance is there a mod I can use to just change this one small factor?

Did "schooling" kill creativity? No, the real problem is that people believe everything requires an "education", for that's what it comes down to - the idea that you can only gain knowledge by going to school. You don't need to go to school to learn to draw or paint, although it may help. You don't need to go there to learn English, although it may help. You also don't need to go in order to learn mathematics, although it may help. Yet, people continue to propagate this myth because they don't know any better, they don't know how there are so many famous people that never had to go to school to learn.

That's because it makes money for the military/industrial complex. I would also point out, that the two wars were started by a republican. Was King George a Progressive? Whether started by a neocon or not is not what matters NOW. What matters is that "progressives" are NOW defending and supporting the War on Terror despite campaigning against it over 4 years ago. Of course, just like there are conservatives (like Ron Paul) that have refused to support Bush's wars, there are some progressives (2 of which are a couple of the very few politicians I like - Dennis Kucinich & Ralph Nader) that refuse to support the same wars, however, by'n'large, "progressives" support it now against their former stance.

I'd say the 'news' media has gotten a lot better today than it has in the last hundred years with the advent of alternative media sources. For centuries, the "media" of the day has been controlled by the "elite" of their day and people have always needed to read between the lines to get any real information. It wasn't until recently, with the creation of the internet, that it actually became possible for individual sources to publish alternate information on the world around them. (By 'alternate', I don't mean the crap Fox/CNN/MSNBC throw out, but Infowars, Julian Assange, ACLU, various Youtube-using outlets, etc.) The media itself should've never drawn the line. I know you're likely to argue that "war is based on deception, etc." which absolutely is true, but it is quintessentially the duty of a free press to get information out, to ensure people are able to learn the happenings of the external world. A media drawing the line, though, is a mouthpiece that only gets out the story that benefits their own side.

For me, the more powerful intention always comes down to doing what one preaches. I don't care who you are, but if you even so much have the inability to do something - regardless of your willingness - that you're telling someone else to do, there is no credibility to me when you don't do it yourself. If people want to flaunt that they've given money away to charity, I see no problem there - rather, I think that should be flaunted more often. IMO, it'd make things a whole lot better.

I simply define being cool as refusing to resort to force until you're physically threatened.

Going to war with Iran doesn't require Romney, it's just as likely to happen under Obama (just like in 2008 ~ Obama never was going to close Guantanamo nor end the Iraq war, but since he's a "progressive", people on the left almost automatically put their trust in him, just like with neocons and the right). Whoever's president, the economy cannot support all of those soldiers becoming unemployed at once. Not to mention, the U.S. is in a manner of speaking, investing in the Iranian nuclear regime (albeit maybe indirectly) through an Iranian front in Russia.

(Since I don't feel like re-editing my post just to fix any retarded HTML/BBC coding problems, I also meant to of course mention the War on Terror as being another progressive pet project nowadays.)

Can you give specific examples? New Deal Great Society Section-8 Housing Affordable Healthcare Act (the quintessential definition of corporatocratic legislation) "Civil Rights" / "Equal Opportunity" War on Drugs (supported by progressives with the same neocon mantra, in fact) World War II (FDR illegally declared war on by using interventionist measures prior to invasion at Pearl Harbor) Bosnia Vietnam (supported by LBJ) Iran & the Middle East (both sides are undoubtedly guilty of stirring up wars in the middle east just so their oil pals can get money) Guantanamo Bay (4 years later, no closure) Intellectual Property P.A.T.R.I.O.T. A.C.T. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. A.C.T. 2 N.D.A.A. A.C.T.A. C.I.S.P.A. S.O.P.A. P.I.P.A. (Whether started by, most are continued to this day by "progressives" that claim to be for progress when instead are actually for good old dictatorships.)