Grizzle

It's pretty clear the case against him was legally viable, otherwise it would have been dismissed or thrown out of court. Instead he avoids a conviction by entering into a legally binding agreement which, in addition to his treatment and periodic drug tests, clearly stipulates he must remain free from any violation of the law for a period of 18 months. You are correct that the legal definition of probation relies upon a conviction, so let's just call it his "better be good or face the charges" time. Rush is a target only in the sense that he's a public figure. It's not as if they invaded his medicine cabinet at home, he was going through customs. I've been through customs and I've been detained and if I was famous it would have been on the news along with any other embarrassing facts of the situation. He might have been able to buy his way out of a conviction, but no one has enough money to buy off public scrutiny. Maybe the customs agents did single him out, maybe they didn't. He's Rush Limbaugh, recognizable, famous, has drug related legal problems and he was returning from the Dominican Republic. Bad combination. If I were him, I would have left the pills back at the hotel (of course we must consider the possibility he was in a confused state due to the lack of blood flow to his brain.) Turns out he was in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong bottle of pills in his possession. He should be thankful he wasn't doing anything illegal otherwise he'd be in a heap right now. I don't care that he was carrying Viagra, do you? As to his medical records... he's free to use the legal system to sue whomever broke the story. Until then he'll have to suffer the same fate those in the public arena always do. Having their dirty laundry aired for all to see. It's a shame really, all of this never would have happened if he hadn't allegedly engaged in illegal activity. (Note: I use the term allegedly for your benefit and to be PC because his lawyers clearly wouldn't have accepted the agreement if they thought he had a snowballs chance) Being a Republican, I thought Rush was a responsible man who took responsibility for his own actions. Maybe now is a good time to start. Sorry Rush, you've got no one to blame but yourself.

Prez, It is a bit disheartening isn't it? But this is purely a consequence of a government out of touch with it's people. Cynicism rarely sprouts up all by itself, it's a reaction to being constantly disappointed. Maybe the reason that certain things are seen as a political 'stunt' is because they are. Consider advertising, these folks spend millions learning how to subtlety (and not so subtlety)manipulate the public. To learn what makes us tick and which buttons to press to make us drool. To segment, categorize, analyze and nail us to the wall just so they can push product. When they find something that works, they exploit it until it doesn't work anymore, then move onto the next thing. The government is exactly the same. George Carlin has a new routine where he babbles on for about five minutes using all the buzzwords you find in advertising and the public arena to describe himself... I don't think it's funny and I wondered if he's just not funny anymore. Then I realized why he does it... he is just expressing what we've all become and how those that have the power to mold us, view us. As for the NYT story. Ask yourself why Bush and Cheney made such a big stink on Monday, but now that some Congressmen are calling for legal action against the NYT, they haven't said squat. What's the deal? Did they "drop the ball" so that Congress could run with it thereby rendering themselves exculpable andleaving Congressman to take the hit and gamble on suing a newspaper (something that has not proven successful in the past)? Are they fearful that an investigation into the NYT will reveal who leaked the story? Are they worried that what they've done is actually unconstitutional and an investigation will invariably expose that? Who knows, but the way I see it, our Government has long since been respectable or operated on the level of anything even closely resembling integrity. It's downright depressing.

quote:Originally posted by aramike: Simply saying "I saw it" is what doesn't pass the smell test. In the other thread I was looking for links to the other networks reporting it and couldn't find any. Perhaps you could enlighten us? As far as the Bush administration not saying anything ... that's normal. Why would they give up ANYTHING concerning national security to the press, which, in the recent New York Times story regarding bank accounts, cares more about the story than the safety of Americans. Funny, how the NEW YORK TIMES reported that story, though ... being from NEW YORK and all, you'd think they'd be more invested in national security than most after 9/11. I "saw it" on television, I've no idea if their websites carried the story or not and I don't care. The story has already been debunked by the government themselves. As far as the NYT goes.. good for them. Two weeks from now the whole thing will be forgotten. Besides, who didn't already know the government was tracking financial transactions in an effort to hunt down terrorists? I would expect any government to do at least that under similar circumstances. The issue is how the administration goes about getting these things done. Among other reasons, Congress exists to provide oversight of the executive branch to make sure they aren't sticking it to the good citizens of this country. The Constitution does not get suspended during a time of War. It amazes me to see theses politicians huffing about the arrogance of the NYT and "just where do they get off..." stance. They seem to forget one thing, this country belongs to the people not the government. They exist to do our bidding, not the other way around. Now if the story exposed information about ground operations and military strategy in Iraq I might agree with you, but on this particular topic it's a non-issue. Expect to see more and more of this as we get closer to the election. Who wants to guess when we'll next see another "Terror Alert - Condition Orange". Remember those? I predict there will be at least one more before the elections to "remind" people what danger we are in. Yep, I'm a cynic alright and damn proud of it.

Hold on there guys... Rush reached a plea bargain that contained stipulations that he continue drug treatment and remain free of any other drug related legal problems. How would we know if he violated that agreement if they didn't check up on him? Don't you think finding a prescription in his posession but not in his name is cause for at least a little review? If he didn't break any laws (and I don't think he did) then it'll all blow over. He's still on probation and just as any other criminal in his situation would be subject to verification and review, so too is he.

I don't know where you guys were when the WMD story came out, but it played on ALL the networks. I know, I saw it. The difference being that the "MSM" didn't continue with the story because it didn't pass the smell test... well, that and the fact that senior officials in the government clearly stated (jedi mind trick) "these are not the WMD's we were looking for". Oh and one might consider the fact that the Bush admin themselves (besides Rumsfeld's lame attempt at neither confirming or denying) have kept their mouths shut. Poor Rick Santorum, being 18 points down in the polls has got to have him worried.

Nice post Prez. Looks like you and I and WeeGee agree. Though I might add that I believe the duplicity with which this government seems to deal in foreign relations is a big part of the reason why so many nations dislike us. I've long believed this country should lead by example and some of the examples we set aren't exactly in line with what we preach or the image we wish to (and should) project.

Sniff...sniff.... What's that smell? Oh... there's an election coming up.

Hey Prez, right back at ya. I don't think the idea that we've provided Iraq with chemical weapons in the past is meant to insinuate those exact same weapons have been used against us. It's merely that we were once complicit with the enemy and as such remain culpable for the deaths due to the use of those weapons (whenever that may have been and to whomever they were used upon.) Sure, if we didn't supply them someone else would have but is that really an excuse? There is no excuse. Conventional arms are one thing, chemical weapons and other WMD's are another. As far as I'm concerned, whether we "allowed" it to happen or whether Rumsfeld personally delivered them by hand is fairly irrelevent. What is to be said of a government that "allows" private industry to sell such dangerous agents around the world and indeed to those considered a danger to it's own national security anyway? Despite the official line, I'm inclined to believe all of this was sanctioned by and done with full knowledge of the Government. I no longer have faith that anything the government tells us is the whole truth. Now we can all argue whether such actions are justified or even actually occur, and that's fine, but to believe that the government is infallible is the first step towards losing control of it.

quote:Originally posted by Remo Williams: quote:Originally posted by Voli0: Ofcourse WMDs were to be found from Iraq, because it was US that gave them to it. -v If you believe that you have been fooled and intimidated by the influence of the left leaning liberal mass media. Out of all the weapons that were given to Iraq in their fight with Iran this type would have never been given not even to our supposed allies aboard or to the north do we share these weapons. Think about what you say before you say it please. Unfortunately Remo, it's true... there is a Senate Committee report entitled "U.S. Chemical and Biological Exports to Iraq and Their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War" According to a Senate Committee Report of 1994 {1}: From 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials were exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow, agonizing deaths, were: * Bacillus Anthracis, cause of anthrax. * Clostridium Botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin. * Histoplasma Capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart. * Brucella Melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs. * Clotsridium Perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness. * Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic. * Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); genetic materials; human and bacterial DNA. Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped to Iraq during the 1980s. The Senate Report pointed out: "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction." {2} "It was later learned," the committee revealed, "that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."{3} These exports continued to at least November 28, 1989 despite the fact that Iraq had been reported to be engaging in chemical warfare and possibly biological warfare against Iranians, Kurds, and Shiites since the early 80s. During the Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88, the United States gave military aid and intelligence information to both sides, hoping that each would inflict severe damage on the other, in line perhaps with what Noam Chomsky has postulated: It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price. Indeed, there is evidence that Washington encouraged Iraq to attack Iran and ignite the war in the first place. This policy, as well as financial considerations, were likely the motivating forces behind providing Iraq with the biological materials. (Iran was at that time regarded as the greater threat to the seemingly always threatened U.S. national security.)

The whole thing has left me quite speechless. Regardless of whether or not the threat is real or perceived...it's not prudent, wise, or in any way sensible. I'm simply dumbfounded, but then again, I always questioned the wisdom of this administration and this just proves they haven't even been listening to their own rhetoric for the past 4 years.

Hasn't this thread died a peaceful death yet? To each his own, leave it at that.

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: I had the site pulled after someone sent me this thread.Maybe we had that impression because of that . Poor choice of words I suppose. I liked the idea of Shingen's site and while I would never engage in bashing you or your game, I think it would be nice to have a place to go and discuss the game without fear of posting the wrong thing at the wrong time. I have no plans to leave 3000AD, unless you feel otherwise, but my enthusiasm has definitely been tainted. Ciao.

With all due respect Derek, I find this a bit disturbing. Of the umpteen real sites that actually do bash you and your game you chose to pull the plug on IndieBC because you thought it might become one? Seriously, what more could be posted about you or your games that you haven't already heard a million times over? Was this really the straw that broke that camels back? I find that hard to believe. I have purchased and supported your games since the original BC3K was released. I understand the way you like this forum to be run and why you do so, but the downside of your stance is that it stifles honest and open discussion. Discussion that could possibly lead to your games being even better than they are. You deserve kudos for taking such an active role in supporting your product, but I can't tell you how many times I didn't post about an issue/bug or whatever because of the ruckus it would cause. So when my game crashes after a few hours of play and I lose all that time investment, I just walk away and hope that it somehow gets fixed. You know what? I'm still hoping. In any event, I've a suspicion this decision was primarily motivated by personal vendetta and the fear that certain notable personalities here at 3000AD *might* get offended at some of the things they *might* read at IndieBC. And to that I say, "If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen", sound familiar?

Yep, Derek has some friends at Avault I think that's the best review of one of SC's games I've ever read... Though he didn't seem to know about the all mighty APPENDIX.

quote:Originally posted by LostInSpace: In response to your last two sentences, that's what's got my head scratching about the whole religious v. Scientist antagonism. Maybe the church feared that popular knowlege of such thoughts and discoveries was a threat to their power. If the church and bible is wrong about this or that, how can we believe anything they or it has to say. That's the only thing I can come up with to answer that. I think that's a reasonable assumption.

I dunno, I find it kind of boring when playing without the story line. But playing with the story line is just as unbearable. Plus they simply MUST get rid of that space dust/gas cloud crap that keeps coming at you when flying, it's just plain annoying. For me, it just seems like there is too much crap hanging out there in space and it kind of ruins the feel of being in space. I've heard others describe it as a trading sim in space, which is what it feels like, and not at all what I had envisioned. I never had any performance issues and if anything the new patch has added some hitches and stuttering that I didn't have before.

There's probably no point in posting this other than to say there once was a site (harmony-central.com) that used to have exactly what you're asking for. Unfortunately they got sued for copyright infringement and had to remove all their sheet music. They've still got tabs though.

Nice work Soback, I (*gasp*) actually agree with you on this on. I was trying to make the point Liberalism has it's roots in personal freedoms, and you've taken that a step further and provided even more clarification. I think Jag was referring to modern liberalism as more leaning towards socialism (correct me if I'm wrong Jag.)

I won't disagree with you Jag. The fact that some have corrupted the ideology of Liberalism doesn't change the fact that both "modern" and "classical" liberalism are based on the same principals. However misguided *some* modern liberals may be, it does not cast the whole of the ideology in a suspicious light. Kind of like how the Neo-Cons have corrupted Conservatism, yet somehow a distinction has been drawn between the two. Whereas Liberals are seen as f'in Liberals and all of them are painted with the same brush.

Aperson, amen. Remember: Fear leads to Anger, Anger leads to Hate, Hate leads to Suffering

Soback, I understand. I just find it interesting that you chose to quote that passage given that the concept of inalienable rights is central to the ideology of Liberalism, which you hate so much. The DOI goes on to state: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. It would seem that our forefathers thought the government should play a role in guaranteeing these basic rights and freedoms for all men (and since then, women). Yet in modern times, Liberalism has become a four letter word used by yourself and so many others to disparage anyone that actually believes in it. Does this concern you one bit? That you've been taught that it's the Liberals that are trying to destroy this country and the Conservatives who are trying to preserve it? I'd suggest you lookup the definition of both terms and see for yourself which one more closely resembles the sentiments presented in the DOI. Prez, yes, things were different back then so one must view the DOI and the Constitution in context. Which is why it's confusing when some of you defend the Constitution to the letter. Just remember that even the framers had the foresight to allow amendments with the understanding that times do change and what once worked within their society and political landscape may not always work for future generations.

quote:Originally posted by Soback: What you, Nomad, fail to understand, is that the US Constitution was written to be UNDERSTOOD by the common man. Without the need for lawyers. If you need a lawyer to interpret for you the meaning of "All men are created equal" and "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.ÔÇô" then, like I have been saying over and over again, with your lack of knowledge on the most simple statement on this earth proves that you have no bussiness discussing US Constitution.Well Soback, apparently the framers themselves could have used a small lesson in understanding what they wrote given that half of them were slave owners. Not only that, but your incessant intolerance and disparaging remarks towards the "socialists", liberals, Europeans and effectively anyone who doesn't agree with you shows that YOU don't understand those words either.

I don't understand why it's so hard to believe the Big Bang theory just because one can't conceive of all the matter in the Universe coming from a single spec, yet so readily accept that a God created it all from nothing. What's the difference? Where did God get all this matter?

I played all the versions of Tribes and while I probably played the first one more than the two sequels, I enjoyed them all. It was one of those games where if you had a good balanced/coordinated team no other online FPS could touch it IMHO (and that inculdes the original Unreal Tournament.)

I'm curious too. I used to play it and the only contoversy I ever experienced was being on a team with players who didn't know wtf they were doing. I thought it was way better than Unreal though.