aramike

quote: It's not a police state, Aramike. It's called holding those who violate our Constitution responsible. Starting from the top, those who wrote the illegitimate law, to the bottow with those who enforce the illegitimate law....and then get those who've used the system, etc, etc... My point is simply that its silly to assert that we punish people for participating in a system so entrenched in our society. Rather, our time would be more well-served attempting to debate and educate on the issue.

quote: Bush spending, Clinton spending. It doesn't matter. Instead of nitpicking between Democrats or Republicans, get them ALL out of office. Prosecute them for crimes against their country, violating the Constitution, execute them, that will send a message to politicians, "If you run for office because you want to manipulate and abuse the USA, you will pay with your life" Only then will you get some real politicians in there.So you're advocating a police state where we prosecute those who are not even directly responsible for something, in order to make a point? I'll give Bush as much crap as the next guy for certain areas of spending, but Social Security ain't it.

Close friend works for Aldis as manager. No cashier there is making $12-$15 an hour. He says average wage is roughly $9.

I find it hilarious how lefties want to give the general Muslim community a broad pass because "it's only a few..." No, it's not only a few. How about the 1000s in the streets celebrating after 9/11? How about the continuous protests burning American flags and effigies? Maybe the "few" who would actually commit violent acts would be less inclined to do so if they didn't have the support of their people.

I agree ... Bush is not Reagan. However, Reagan's challenges were not quite the same as today's. Furthermore, Reagan had the priviledge of inhereting a rock-bottom economy so the percentages are skewed out of a recession versus a boom. This is simply another example of how "truth" is somewhere between statistics and relevence. While I would be loathe to celebrate Bush as another "Reagan", it would be silly to compare Clinton economics to current economics. It's the underlying problem with America ... too many people are too invested into making too many points that, somehow, the truth is lost in between.

I have to revive this thread because I've finally seen this flick. I have to say, I thought this film was fantastic. This is a rare gem of a film that, if you attempt to look at the obvious, you'll be disappointed. For instance, as Scriv pointed out, the plot DOES explain EVERYTHING to you as it plods along, through a fairly inventive means of narration. BUT, as you wade a bit deeper into the story, you find that the "Fairy Tale" isn't really the plot after all - in fact, the film doesn't work unles you're aware of the story quite early. I found the film to be a very touching caricature of people attempting to find their place in the world, and in them making mistakes along the way. The only things that would have made it better flick are a quicker start and a better sense of relationships between each character. Therefore: 7/10

I concur. I would make voting open for 48 hours as well as giving a little longer period of notice.

quote: Israel is regarding every life of each citizen as important. to israel, adbuct 2 soldiers, you might have well have killed 1000.Better to not wait for 1000 to have been killed.

The fact that E3 became practically off-limits to anyone but the bloated ranks of the so-called gaming press, I'm not surprised. Any idiot with a little spare time and basic HTML skills could create a gaming "media site" and therefore claim entrance into E3 while the rest of us who don't bother ourselves with such nonsense, and also actually PAY for the software we use, have to pay primo dollar for far less content. Is it any wonder that public interest has waned in an event which has done practically everything in order to shut the public out?

I'm gonna laugh when the Germans begin seeing their prices increase as a result of this move.

"Heat" should go down on the all-time-best-shootout-list, as far as I'm concerned. You know what I think made it so good? Sound. They didn't try to throw crappy, over-dramatic music in and didn't use use "studio" recordings of gunshot sounds. Instead it had a very "natural" effect. Heh, I wish MORE directors will figure out that a shootout is intense enough to not have to add other, distracting BS. Now, as for Miami Vice, I'm gonna take Derek's word on this one. Even from the trailers this flick looks like yet another mindless action film. I grew out of those roughly at the age of 18. My only question, though, is if it THAT bad, isn't a "5" a little too nice of a score?

The average Joe is indeed affected. First of all, the tax cut was for EVERYONE. Secondly, as JUDGExKTF pointed out, corporations can higher more employees and pay better. Finally, and most important - cost savings are passed on to the consumer to stymie goods-saturation.

Thanks Scriv, I get ya now. quote: After the Village, I had vowed never - ever - to see another one of his movies.Heh, I'm feeling that...

Thanks, Sho. Look, all I want is for people (esp. DS) to look at the idea.

In response to deleted post: If I wanted to do any such thing I would have posted this in private and wanted to be in charge of it. Furthermore, I would like **** to be HEAVILY involved in anything we would do because he's an old-timer and knows what's going on. Maybe you're somewhere that everyone else has passed, but it's fairly well-known that I have NO ILL WILL against **** WHATSOEVER, and consider him both a GREAT GUY and a FRIEND, and I would NEVER wish to exclude him from ANYTHING. What happened between **** and I concerns only him and I, PERIOD! If you are privy to that conversation, then you know that it should be kept PRIVATE. Somehow, though, I have a feeling that you're NOT privy to it considering that you just registered a few days ago and have posted a sum of 4 times. Never, EVER bring that subject up in public again. That is as clear as I'm going to be about it. Don't test me. I respect EVERY member of this community and as that is the proper thing to do, I expect you to follow that lead and not air ANY "dirty laundry". Those who are in the "know", know. No one else needs to. Clear? Back on topic: I simply want to go back to the days when this place was hoppin' and get EVERYONE involved. quote: Well, apart from whatever degree of comment you'll get from Derek, you're overlooking the fact that a lot of what you're talking about is Derek's IP, not just our sandbox. I would not therefore expect anything that's written into the games themselves to be open to change.Nope. Derek is still in charge of all things and it is still his universe. Just look back at the time when BCM was still in the pipeline. The forum was probably 10X as active. quote: That does leave open the idea of revising the fleets since they were not part of the game universe officially...Exactly. quote: but I'm not sure I'd agree that most of the veterans are inactive and the newer people are more so. Wha???? Search for topics involving the following names: Rattler Akira (was known as "Ron Wallin") Blades Greg Miller Gudihl (had different alias) Etc. If you go back to a few months prior to the BCM launch, you'll see a difference in activity. Let me make this clear: I do NOT wish to invalidate ANYONE's work, or go off on my own tangent here - DS and the other old vets know me better than that. I'm simply doing what got us this community in the first place - thinking outside of the box. quote: Not that my opinion on this counts for more than $.02, but you should examine your expectations I think.Everyone's opinion counts here. And, as I've said, I have NO expectations whatsoever. I simply wanted to throw something different out there. I just want to get something going here again. Have you noticed how we can hardly even find someone WILLING to lead Prime Fleet? Imagine how fun it was to be there when it all started? That's where I'm advocating we go. [ 07-25-2006, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: aramike ]

You know what? We've been doing this fleet thing for years now ... and it seems as though we have to spend a helluva lot of time maintaining it. If I were in charge, I'd say let's just start over. Get rid of all fleets, neutralize all assets, have everyone come in fresh, etc. I know it would be a lot of work, but hear me out on this... If we want to keep people engaged in the game and the community, we have to keep providing something fresh. What could be more fresh than this? We're already talking about contracting fleets and making structural changes. Why not give the newer members here a voice? I can't remember a time where these discussions were more engaging and more lively than when we first started putting our heads together on creating the fleet structure. I simply think that maybe it's time that we start over. For one thing, a lot of the members that helped get it all rolling in the first place are no longer active members here. Why not let the people who ARE active members put their stamp on the BC universe? I know what I am about to propose is going to be EXTREMELY controversial, but here goes... 1: We should immediately create a BB rank of "Fleet Administrator" that is completely separate and isolated from and MP or RP roles. I would nominate Shohashi for this because he's been keeping a sinking ship from going under for quite some time now. 2: I know that I stand a roughly 75% chance of pissing Derek off over this, but I have to say it anyway. One thing about the "old" days when this all was really ramping up was, that as much as DS *****ed and moaned about us making feature requests, he actually put most of them in, including letting us allocate fleet and alliance assets. I think he should open up the BC universe again. "3000AD" should be retired. Let's let an era pass with grace and start writing an all-new chapter (heck, and all-new book). How about "3500AD"? You all get where I'm going with this. 3: We create new fleets, with new alliances and new designations. We'll create a new "now" for the BC universe. This will allow us to consolidate and populate. 4: A group of experienced individuals writes an "official history" of the BC3K universe and the events that lead up to where we are today. I know that this will involve a lot of old work being moved aside, but hey - Derek didn't just keep updating bc3K, did he? I think that it's time that, as a community we go out with the old ... and in with the new.

Siegel vs Smith Kevin Smith is right regarding Siegel's antics. But how many times must a guy apologize before you drop it?

The problem with Shyamalan is that he's almost TOO good at plot-twists. The reason that's a problem is that you need a balance between the audience not seeing it coming a mile away and it making enough sense that the audience thinks, "how did I not see that coming?". The reason I point that out is: quote: Lady in the Water is pretentious, egotistical, demeaning, and uninteresting. Essentially, you are paying to watch Shyamalan mentally masturbate onto the audience - and it's positively infuriating. The story thinks it's more intelligent than it's audience, and once you hit the 30 minute mark, the attacks don't stop until it's over.What do you mean by this? I haven't seen the movie yet, but you indicated that you liked The Village. I thought The Village was crap. Just want to know where you're coming from.

I recommend someone initiating a roll call to assure that all potential candidates are aware of this opening.

quote: Agreed. Mostly. But it takes a lot of faith to think the government is any better at assuring a foreign company remains legal in its dealings ... any better than it is at running something themselves or contracting out.Typically speaking, in situations like this, governments require a substantial bond to be placed in order to prevent such problems. quote: If the government can be nudged aside when it comes to savings & loans, cable TV, the airlines, and utility companies ... what makes you think they can't be made as impotent in other cases of oversight?Again, that's a problem with government and for another thread. It's a typical catch-22. Which is exactly why I'm all for privatization. Private companies actually have something to lose and are invested in their success whereas a government agency really faces very little in the way of accountability. While I do agree that there could be some problems with such a deal, there are also some benefits worth considering.

Soback: Sure, we get taxed twice on many things. Still not being taxed any more than we would otherwise be regarding privatized roadways... General taxation isn't really related here. quote: Telling someone? You mean like telling someone to supply you with toilet seats ... then pay $640 for each seat?Dude, that's somewhat of an urban legend, first of all. Secondly, you've made my point (and didn't even know it). If the government was actually maintaining the road, they would have to pay contractors and suppliers (which, as you pointed out, would be at somewhat inflationary prices). However, if the responsibility fell onto a private company, then that COMPANY would have to pay - and trust me, if you're private, you do ANYTHING to keep costs down. We're not talking about a private company contracting to REPAIR roads, as your point would suggest. quote: Easier, yeah. Cheaper, no. More efficient? Yeah, right.Exactly. I would be more expensive to have the government running the operation. When I said "government oversight" where on earth did you get the idea that meant the government would be running the operation, ESPECIALLY considering that my point was to the direct contrary? Government oversight is NOT the government contracting someone to do something. It's the government assuring that someone does something using legal ramifications. Dude, thanks for arguing my point for me.

You know what, though - I think we may be talking about 2 different things. Are we talking about a GOVERNMENT toll road going to a private toll road or a government FREE road going to a private toll road? In the latter case, I STILL think it's a good idea because I don't believe in redistribution of wealth (everyone paying for something not everyone uses), but my argument would be far different and would include the private company fronting the money to build the road in the first place or to pay the construction costs + the premium leasing fees.

Soback: Your logic completely ignores my point. The tax dollars ARE reocvered by way of future tax savings. You said it: 5 year old math. $1 million road. $100 per citizen PLUS maintanence costs. Company buys road. PAYS $5 million (YOUR OWN argument stated, "at a premium"). That's $500 IN TAX SAVINGS TO THE CITIZENS, by your math. But wait - there's more: company pays taxes on profits and land. MILLIONS of dollars in taxes. That's EVEN MORE savings. Dude, did you seriously think the GOVERNMENT, of all entities said "we don't want to make as much money!" quote: Can't we conservatives just get along? I hate seeing conservatives I respect argue amogst each other. Let's agree to disagree and focus on what unites us! Hatred of pinko, egg-sucking, commie, tree-hugging, yellow-bellied, terrorist sympathizing LIBERALS! LOL! My only problem is when conservatives take issues and liberalize them. He may not think it, but I DO understand where he's coming from. It's just that he's oversimplified it. I think we face a typical case of not seeing the forest for the trees. The fact is that everywhere that roads have been privatized there have been tremendous cost savings. Sure, people pay at the tolls - but only the people using the roads. Therefore, EVERYONE saves money come tax time. [ 07-23-2006, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: ShoHashi ]

quote: Or, it could be said you want the government to oversee roads but think the same government can't even effectively be in charge of maintaining said roads.LOL. Nice try, but no dice. I NEVER said the government couldn't effectively maintain said roads. I've only advocated that it would be MORE EFFICIENT and beneficial for some roads to be run by private entities. However, you'd miss the boat even if I DID say the government couldn't effectively maintain the roads. Why? What do you think is easier: maintaining the roads or telling someone to maintain them? My point was that it is absurd to assert that the more difficult task is doable but the easier one is not. When you reverse that point, it doesn't make sense any longer. So, you miss on both counts. First, on responding my MY point then on responding to what you THOUGHT was my point. Nice try, though.

quote: Government oversight? They can't even manage the roads and have to sell them off and you want them to oversee someone else in the same task? Heh Heh Heh. That made me laugh.Actually, that contradiction of a comment you just made had me laughing pretty hard. You want the government to be IN CHARGE of maintaining roads, but you think that same government can't even effectively oversee said roads. Dude, WTF? How can a government be equipped to do a complex version of a task but can't even do a far simpler version of a related task? I have a feeling that you're one of the "black helicopter" types who feels the government can't do anything right. Oh wait - except for building and maintaining roads that they would be unable to oversee... Crap, now I'm confused. Oh, by the way - government oversight has been fairly effective regarding private US ports.