aramike

quote: Erm...The genocide that he is referring to includes that done by the Spaniards. He made no specific reference to the USA doing the entire spree. However, the USA continued that spree, by nearly wiping out the Native Americans (1800s). The USA is NOT innocent of genocide.He said: "The United States has helped continue a spree of genocide that dates back to Columbus in 1492, he said.If what you say is what he really meant, then why start at Columbus? We can go a whole lot further back than that. Besides, by this moron's logic we should be arresting and prosecuting people for the actions of their ancestors. No dice.

quote: yep that's right, he's completely justified in removing the poster. it's his right in this country to act any way he pleases.I disagree. That's like saying that I have a right to remove a photograph of a coworkers children, just because I want to.

K -- thanks for the warning.

quote: They also have a point about the genocide thing.How so? And, in fact, those people aren't exactly the types I'd pay a lot of attention to, considering that they don't even know their own history. Here's an example: quote: The United States has helped continue a spree of genocide that dates back to Columbus in 1492, he said.Excuse me?! What the HELL is this moron talking about? The United States wasn't even FORMED until nearly 300 YEARS after that! The idiot should be blaming the Spaniards... What a joke...

Wow, interesting posts... Will have to respond with some detail later, but it looks like everything's under good control here.

quote: Originally posted by Steve Schacher: I see that many of you are willing to impute noble intentions onto this man's actions, but his history, to me, makes him look like an agitator.I see from this article (and a radio report I heard yesterday) that many feel that he sued his way onto the fire department on claims of racial discrimination. Also, he is facing a weapons charge. Like I said, that's the most typical liberal tactic.

OK, I'm bored with fighting the evil forces of socialism, so here's another controvesial subject to ponder : Those who believe that separation between church and state equals something akin to freedom from religion simply have no grasp of the history of this nation. We'll start with the 1st Ammendment: quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Note the area in bold. An establishment of religion means two things -- 1: An establishment of religion is a church. Congress can make no law regarding the church's rights or to limit those rights. In addition, Congress may not respect the political leanings of a church as an entity. However, Congress may respect the political leanings of the church's individual members, even if they fall in line with religious doctrinations. That is the basis of all democracy -- the majority rules. 2: The establishment of religion also means that Congress can make no law requiring anyone to fall as a member of a religion or a derivitive thereof, or that anyone be barred from specific religion worship. No where in the Constitution does it say that Congress cannot fund religion-oriented activities within national interests. The only religion-oriented activity which cannot recieve federal funding is proselytizing. However, Congress also cannot limit private proselytizing. In no way does it say that religious materials cannot be placed on federal property. While some may see that as a form of proselytizing, that would fall under a wide liberal stance. For one thing, such items such as the display of the 10 Commandments are not placed due to laws requiring such placement. Now read the 1st Ammendment again -- "Congress shall make no law..." Our founding fathers also did not believe in the current incarnation of separation of church and state, and they are the ones who wrote the words that we infer to create such a separation. Check your history books -- in 1777 Congress voted to import 100,000 Bibles from Europe for distribution to the people. This hardly seems like the activity of people who wished to separate religion to the extent that some liberals do today.

quote: Originally posted by TRD: On its own, I cant see anything offensive about it. Thats why I think it was just part of a bigger problem with him being a muslim, and the bad name the religion has been given, especially over the last month. With actions like that, he isn't helping to give his religion any better of a name. I don't agree with typing relgions, however, I do realize the nature of it all and he's not helping the perception.

Still, what on Earth is offensive about stating that America will stand its ground -- unless, of course, you don't want America to stand its ground which is a whole 'nother problem... As for the rules of the flag, they generally apply to flags that are meant for staffs, not facimiles of the flag.

I sent you that email, EP5. You must have an old PM from before the DB was purged. You'll just have to deal with it until the new UBB version is released.

quote: Anyone up for an e-mail campaign? Nothing too harsh, or dramatic, just a gentle reminder from the fans of BCM some of the things he missed in his review? I don't think that would be necessary. One person's refuse is another's treasure. And BCM wasn't his refuse anyway. I think he gave it an honest score to his criteria, which is what he should be doing. If he starts letting other people (ala YOU GUYS) help him create a criteria, his reviews would be worthless.

Nova, I doubt the guy did that out of patriotism. There is NOTHING to indicate that in the article, and the ONLY way you guys have put that nonsense together is a completely unrelated set of rules for handling the flag (which I doubt that guy even knew of). Typical liberalism: look for excuses right away instead of accepting the fact that some people are just pricks.

quote: I think this guy just followed the rules, as layed out by his own government, on the care of his nation's symbol. Writing anything on the flag would violate rule 8.I'm not saying he acted right in taking it down, but there is a PATRIOTIC reason behind it. Where the heck did you get that from? I've seen that poster, and the writing is below it. quote: the way i see it, it's not the fact that americans wont run, but the arrogance of such a statement. it reinforces the "american is best" mentality. The Afgan war is widely seen as a war on Islam. and it is this, the "yay yay America" attitude, imo, at which he as a muslim takes offence. just a thought........ ...and what is wrong with believing that your nation IS the best? What is wrong with that? If someone tore down a similar Mexico flag, there'd be hell to raise. This nation is rather unique in that the flag represents a NATION, not a culture. If you don't like the US, do something about it or leave. Don't ATTACK the symbols that represent the unity of the nation itself. And if he doesn't like this "yay, yay" American attitude, he can leave. I don't recall him complaining about the "yay yay" Muslim attitude. [ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

Now this is liberal sensitivity taken to the extreme.

quote: Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: You think thats bad, huh?Here, take a gander at this and this Yeah, I saw those on Fox News (they've been discrediting such things for awhile now). Frankly, I'd like to kick the ass of whoever did the airliner one.

Again, I was impressed. As some of you may know, I was never a real Star Trek fan (the original aside). This show seems to be fresh and the actors seem to play it rather well. Plus, for once, the aliens actually seem strange!

ROFLMAO!!! "I declare a jihad on you baby" That's too funny

You think CNN is guilty of pushing its own agenda? I do too. But it ain't nothing like this... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,36648,00.html

buckthesystem: That's quite true. However, fleets are around for more than just gameplay purposes. For one, they facilitate RP rather well. Moreso, it's a lot better to have the fleets ready to go before the game ships rather than hastily throwing them together after the matter.

quote: As for political freedom, capitalism provides nothing of the sort. The constitution and the bill of rights are not capitalist documents, they're liberal documents. Equality before the law is a liberal concept. Before you start talking about what liberalism is, here is what the dictionary says about it.Confusion of government and economy. Capitalism facilitates a democratic government, whereas socialism does not. Capitalism and socialism are both primarily economic models, not government models. The difference is that, in socialism, the government must completely control the economic model (including labor) in order to achieve success. This would invariably lead to communism as, in order to regulate the goods production, the government would have to control more than just social distribution.

quote: Originally posted by Menchise: Guns are also fairly restricted in Australia.Handguns are allowed, but automatic and semi-automatic weapons are banned. This was done in 1996 in response to the Port Arthur massacre (a psycho killed over 30 people in a restaurant with a semi-automatic). Japan is the ultimate success story of gun control. They have the most restrictive gun laws in the world. The entire country has about as many homicides per year as New York City has in a day. To say the least, that is very interesting. Japan also has traditionally had a strict code of moral conduct and hasn't been in a moral slide (our friggin' president was getting hummers!). At any rate, Japan was also the site of the subway nerve gas attack and has quite a few heavily armed terrorists floating around. Give and take.

quote: I have an idea. How about, instead of distilling Cosmos' entire argument down to an accusation of fascism and then saying that the argument is wrong without any foundation, that you actually try rebutting the argument. In other words, countering the points.I have an idea: how about you killing the unpleasant sarcasm. At any rate, I don't need to spend time rebutting an argument that is completely out of whack and DILIBERATELY misrepresents FACTS. At that point, it appears that the argument is merely inflammatory. quote: I couldn't find any arguments in your posts that were relevant to my latest post about 'human nature' (the one where I state that nobody has managed to explain how or why other societies without greed, competitiveness, or private property managed to provide working systems with freedom and subsistence).Read 'em again. They're on the second page of this thread. quote: Well, freedom does indeed exist under any system, may it be capitalism, communism, or whatever, doesn't it?No. Capitalistic freedom is one kind, yes, but not the only freedom that a capitalist nation affords over a socialist nation. 1: I prefer to have choices. When purchasing a product, I prefer the quality to be better due to free-market competition. In a socialist system, the products would invariably be worse due to total lack of incentive for improvement. 2: I prefer the freedom of advancement. Look at ANY of those so-called "socialist" races you've pointed out. How far did THEY advance technologically in 600 years versus how far capitalists advanced in 100 years? Capitalism, even in a monarchy-type form, has ALWAYS spurred advancement. That and war. 3: I prefer the freedom of control. When I own something, I don't want the government to be able to force me to let another citizen use it. 4: I prefer the freedom of occupational choice. If an industry is failing in a socialist system, guess what: workers MUST be diverted to fill that industry. Now, HOW would you do that? Incentives? No, you can't, you're in a socialist system. Ask people? Yeah, right -- if people didn't choose to go there in the first place, why the hell would they go there now? Force people? Fine, sure -- become a centralized-slave state. Or just let the industry fail, and push people into poverty. Real workable system.

Cosmos: The fact that you called this nation "fascist" seems to invalidate the argument on its own. $ilk: PLEASE quit changing the font sizes. They are already selected. Menchise: I'm fine with the economic arguments -- take your time. Those are economic FACTS, not theory. Hard to challenge. As for human nature, I think you've defaulted yourself on that one (read my arguments on that).