HeyYou

Lol, the only 'due course' on the battlefield is projectile velocity. Though my original question had more to due with abrogation of constitutional rights and where that begins and ends. I am never comfortable with infringements of the constitution for expedience sake. If they were inside they country then normal due process of arrest and trial could take place. I would be more comfortable with a judicial process of stripping them of their citizenship expeditiously before targeting them in the field. You look good in green. :) I can see your point.... but, on the battlefield, you don't verify folks credentials/citizenship/whathaveyou before defending yourself, and removing a threat. Granted, given some of the stuff that has managed to find its way into law, I could be declared a terrorist, and they could send a drone with a missile with my name on it tomorrow.... Not like I am a staunch supporter of our government. :) Granted, I haven't advocated violent overthrow of same for a while now...... What we are currently involved in is probably about as "unconventional" as war gets... the 'enemy' isn't in uniform, doesn't have a specific location, or much of anything else really... they blend with the residents of whatever location they happen to be in...... and then get all up in arms when civilians are killed, because we were targeting the terrorists..... Quite frankly, I don't think it's a war we can win with guns/bombs/missiles in any event..... Maybe I was not clear enough, on the ground in a firefight shoot first and check passports later. What I was talking about is using a drone to go after a specific target that we know is an American citizen before launch of a hellfire. In other words, the citizen was the primary objective from the moment the predator took to the air, not collateral damage. Yeah, there is that minor "foreknowledge" deal...... But, what ya gonna do? Wait a month or more for authorization to work its way thru the system? At which point, said citizen is highly likely to be elsewhere... I suppose, if you had a 'target list'..... which I am sure we do..... getting some flavor of apprehend if possible/kill otherwise... order would be acceptable??

Lol, the only 'due course' on the battlefield is projectile velocity. Though my original question had more to due with abrogation of constitutional rights and where that begins and ends. I am never comfortable with infringements of the constitution for expedience sake. If they were inside they country then normal due process of arrest and trial could take place. I would be more comfortable with a judicial process of stripping them of their citizenship expeditiously before targeting them in the field. You look good in green. :) I can see your point.... but, on the battlefield, you don't verify folks credentials/citizenship/whathaveyou before defending yourself, and removing a threat. Granted, given some of the stuff that has managed to find its way into law, I could be declared a terrorist, and they could send a drone with a missile with my name on it tomorrow.... Not like I am a staunch supporter of our government. :) Granted, I haven't advocated violent overthrow of same for a while now...... What we are currently involved in is probably about as "unconventional" as war gets... the 'enemy' isn't in uniform, doesn't have a specific location, or much of anything else really... they blend with the residents of whatever location they happen to be in...... and then get all up in arms when civilians are killed, because we were targeting the terrorists..... Quite frankly, I don't think it's a war we can win with guns/bombs/missiles in any event.....

Drones in US airspace? Ok, so, how is that any different than cops using airplanes to catch speeders? Or using "oblique imagery" for assessing taxes/violations of local ordinances??? As for the topic at hand...... As soon as I read "ACLU"..... I figured this whole deal was going to be nothing but an attention grabber to boost fund-raising for various odd organizations. In my view, if you are deemed a 'terrorist', are hanging out with known terrorists, we have evidence that you have been complicit in attacks, or attempted attacks...... and given that we are conducting a "war on terror"..... That makes you an enemy combatant, and there is no 'due course' on the battlefield.

Well if ever there is a decision to nominate a President or whatever other title could be dreamt up for someone on the Debates Forum then I'd definitely vote for Aurelius ... never has a greater truth been spoken here. Having said that, many a time people don't read each other's posts ... they simply make up some clueless response based on the way they currently feel ... you can actually see the tangent ... it's unreal. I have chosen not to respond to most of them. Though my life viewpoints tend to lean very heavily to one side of the "Us and Them" attitude that prevails here, I am a firecely independent ... and so get bashed from both sides ... just one of those things. I do not believe in "co-dependancy" I believe in respect ... and if people here respect each other despite their obvious differences then there wouldn't even have been a need for this specific topic. If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. George Orwell But that does not mean that you can say what you want to ... liberty does not mean unrestraint, there is a difference ... unfortunately, some are blind to that fact, and so they trip over the law here and get banned. So, does the Debates Forum need to be Moderated ? Yes, because some choose to ignore the fact that freedom's middle name is respect. I think a lot of what folks are viewing as "the issues" here, are simply because of the diverse nature of the posters in this forum. We have folks from all over the world, ranging in age from 13 to 60+. Not only do we have nationality differences, we also have generational differences. Certainly adds some spice to life, don't it. :D

It's dead Jim........ I am going to guess the answer to the question at hand is the same one that the bulk of those that voted for/against it is. A resounding No. The republicans didn't like it, simply because it was brought up by the dems. A selection of dems didn't like it because of the individual mandate, or, the lack of a public option. What we got was a compromise that did nothing toward it's intended purpose, which was Reduce the cost of health CARE. This 'law' completely missed the mark on that one. It is also going to fail in the rest of it goals. Insurance is going to get more expensive, because that is simply what it does. Have a look at the last decade... even when employment was good... Health care went up 48%, inflation was only 26%. You cannot legislate away the law of supply and demand. Supply has been getting thinner. Demand has been getting stronger. With all the new folks back on the insurance roles, demand is going to spike. Supply isn't going to. So, you will pay more, for less, of an inferior product. Just what we always wanted.....

And here I thought the idea was to Kill Your Enemies.... not provide them with necessary revenue so they can continue to fight you, in the hopes that they will use some of that ordinance on their own folks..... I still think its stupid. :D

Soldiers ARE resources, and a precious one at that. One that should be conserved whenever possible. It just isn't always possible. One of the rules of war is: Men Die.

Quite frankly, in this day and age, the wiki definition is more accurate...... Today, NO troops are considered "merely material" in any sense. War has progressed far beyond that. NONE of the high tech machinery we use today would be worth a tinkers dam without the men to run it. You can TAKE territory with air power, but, in order to HOLD it, you need boots on the ground. Without the foot soldier, war would be simply senseless slaughter.

Have any earlier saves? Relying on just one, and constantly overwriting it is not without peril in beth games. They are notorious for corrupting them.....

In the middle east, the definition of "ally" is rather mutable as well...... some of our allies are also our enemies... saves time keeping track of them that way I suppose. Not to mention that we are PAYING our enemies not to attack our convoys, so that our supplies can get thru...... and of course, they use that money to purchase more weapons with which to fight us....... How is that in any way a good idea??

Try playing without the stutter remover.

The 5450 will run the game, but, probably not as well as you would like. That's a mid-level business class card, not a gaming card.

Is the loader and the dll file in the Oblivion folder? (not data folder)

DRM is completely useless, and a waste of the game developers money. All it accomplishes is alienating its paying customer base with games that they either cannot get to run, or, interferes with the operation of various bits of hardware. In all reality, I would wager that DRM is responsible for MORE folks pirating games, than if there hadn't been any to begin with. After all, the pirates don't have the issues the paying customers do. Nice huh?

If you find it, please let me know.....

Not a fan of IE myself...... I use firefox.

You guys leave that to the Illuminati that actually run the site, right? If you honestly believe (though I understand that you are joking to an extent) that any of us would do that...that ANY of us would ban someone because we disagreed with their opinion...then I would ask do you really feel comfy here? I say this as a member of this community..not as a moderator (see no yellow.) I believe this 110% and if I thought that this happened I would not be a member of this community, much less a moderator. I am the moderator whom has taken on this section (mostly) the most recently....though I am not sure I have banned someone from here or just given strikes...really I don't remember....regardless....it is rather funny since I am mostly the odd man out here. I think this section should be moderated at exactly the same standards as every other part of this forum. In other words I don't believe personally in a lightly moderated debates section. The rules are indeed the rules and should apply to all sections...in my opinion. However I have never, ever at any time even considered banning or anything else based on my opinion of someones argument. Ever. How the argument is presented...if it violates the ToS or rules...then I am more than happy to take action. Many know I do not agree with their philosophies....and yet they are still here. So do you really think that any of us would act in such a way...because if you do..wow. How can you trust anything we do? I am not asking that to start something...but rather I am pretty concerned that perhaps you believe this way. No, I don't honestly believe that. I am not quite that much of a conspiracy theorist. :D Just making an attempt at humor. (and failing?)

You guys leave that to the Illuminati that actually run the site, right?

YEE HAA! I find myself 100% in agreement with you.

Indeed the problem does still persist. I can find no settings on my computer (of which, I am the only one that uses it) to explain the behavior. The debates forum tracks correctly. Apparently, NONE of the other sub forums do. Makes keeping track of threads somewhat difficult....... and the 'unread' indicators, pretty much useless. Forum functionality has declined substantially.

YOUR kids may be fine, and that reflects extremely well on you. My son turned out very well too, as did some of the children that I claim..... not all...... a lot depends on the kid. :D Someone previously mentioned that it wasn't really the schools' main goal to teach creativity per se... I think I would have to agree with that. Originally, it was just the three "R"s. (readin', ritin', and rithmatic) As time progressed, 'electives' were added, and then sports programs....... Unfortunately, they don't really do such a bang up job on even the basics.... I see most of the problems stemming from folks that don't know anything about education, legislating how it should be done.....

Tell that to our government..... they don't want schools to be babysitters, but, they won't let parents actually BE parents either. Parents who do not take on their responsibilities have no one to blame but themselves. What a droll concept..parents who instill a value system, work ethic and a moral center...wonder if such a radically new idea such as that could catch on? :facepalm: When most forms of discipline are now considered "abuse", it makes it rather difficult to instill anything at all into your children. It's gotten so bad in Michigan, that simply sending your children to bed without supper is now grounds for removing them from the home...... I would also invite you to have a look at some of the crap that Oregon Childrens Services has been pulling lately. They removed a pair of teenagers from one family, because they got a friggin' sunburn......

Tell that to our government..... they don't want schools to be babysitters, but, they won't let parents actually BE parents either.

I only wish that I did not edit my post before posting it, as you would have seen that I completely agree with you in this regard ... there is nothing I hate more than someone spouting filth from their mouth by swearing. The calling people names and discriminating against them due to their race, colour or creed etc, is also a load of nonsense and should NOT be tolerated. However, if someone does "push your buttons" (and it happens to everyone here), from the greatest to the smallest ... then I need to have the right to defend myself. If I get annoyed due to someone disagreeing with me as per a point in a topic ... fair and well ... then that's my problem. Maybe I never thought through what I said or perhaps never even thought at all or maybe my "facts were in fact fiction", the list goes on ... but that's my problem and I need to get over it and get my facts straight. Even a personal barb can be overlooked from time to time ... it's just maturity ... but there are times that people go out of their way to be just plain nasty. They have clearly left the realm of decency ... it's got nothing to do with the topic at hand anymore ... and it's just plain nastiness ... it's happened to me and virtually everyone else here. Here is the crucible, here is the flame ... do you smack the twit or smile and let it go cos they're simply not worth your time ? Here is where today (whenever that may be) it might simply not have been your day and you lose your cool ... so now you get banned because you lost it. Hurling back abuse is also not what I mean ... hurling back creative abuse is better. Nevermind the "flat out arguement" that virtually never happens, not even a decent one for a fair amount of time. Sometimes the Debates Forum is like having a boxing match but telling the boxers not to hurt each other ... even within the rules ... that makes no sense. So because this topic is about whether or not the Debates section should still exist or be Moderated ... I say leave it as it is ... but change the rules slightly because of the nature of the beast. A Debates Ban just like the Chat Ban should work here ... you're naughty then you get a Two Month Ban as opposed to the two week chat ban enforced in Chat. But hey, that might mean the Moderators would have more work on their hands ... no not neccessarily so ... if you get that ban here then when the two months are up then it's up to "you" to approach the Moderators and tell them so. ALL the current rules should remain ... the rot should still be removed. Posts of that nature (bolded part) Should be Reported. Not responded to. If you are short-tempered, or, just having a bad day, and have any doubts whatsoever about keeping your baser instincts under control, simply don't come to the debates forum.... Folks are responsible for their own actions. That applies here as well. The rules are the rules, and do not allow for exceptions because someone had a bad hair day. If such things were permitted to be used as an excuse of unacceptable behavior, anyone that got a warning/ban, would be claiming "it was just a bad day", and there would be no point in enforcing the rules. It doesn't work like that in the outside world, it shouldn't be like that here. If you step over the line, regardless of reasoning, you should fully EXPECT to pay the penalty for it.

There are exceptions to every rule, including generalizations. I live here in the states, and, by and large, the rich do NOT do military service. With a few notable exceptions...... :D Some of the rich went so far as to go to school in another country, (in reality, they lived there, not all were actually going to school) to dodge military service...... This was especially prevalent during the Viet Nam era.