Home | Download | Discussion | Help | Site Map | New Posts | Sign in

Latest Site News

New Creator Theme: Elders! - posted on 1st Sep 2018 at 11:43 AM
Replies: 206 (Who?), Viewed: 56107 times.
Page 2 of 9
Test Subject
#26 Old 29th Jun 2016 at 8:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarVee
Roads in north Africa have been paved for years ... millennia even. Worlds first road that could be considered "paved" was Egyptian according to archeologists.

Buildings have always been "going up" in Africa. It's not like we all live in sand dunes or caves, and people have had smartphones for last 8 years or so. We are not that far behind technologically, contrary to what American media makes people believe.


I was talking about Sub-Saharan Africa. I didn't to mean to insult you. Mostly, don't forget Libya had the best healthcare system on the continent, and an amazing irrigation project, until Hillary decided to get rid our friend since 2003, Qaddafi.

The phones are coming, and as computers get cheaper and people get wealthier they'll come too. I didn't mean to offend you. I read some articles a couple years back about African entrepreneurs to run their small businesses, so that's the image I had in my head. I found good articles to China building railroads in this case.

See China building another railroad in Africa

Or the one they built

A quick search reveals yet more railways in Ethiopa and Kenya

Shoutout the Egyptian! Looks like you're government looking to China too . I don't blame countries one bit for looking to Moscow and Beijing when we turn on our allies for short-term political goals.

For what I mean on America seeking enemies rather than peace in good faith, RT has a great article: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/347769-n...-russia-threat/. We need rivals, not enemies. During the Eisenhower administration we reached out to the Soviet Union to establish communications, we said we wanted peace, we wanted to prevent war. Trump wants to do what Ike did, Hillary wants more 'enemies' for her patrons in the Military-Industrial-Complex Ike warned us about in 1961.

"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."-Dwight D. Eisenhower.

So there, I believe I've made my case in an articulate and civil manner.
Theorist
DELETED POST
29th Jun 2016 at 9:03 AM Last edited by HarVee : 29th Jun 2016 at 9:23 AM.
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Theorist
#27 Old 30th Jun 2016 at 3:19 AM
I'm thinking he's just milking the bull in any case at this point. Gaddafi was like the Scarface version of Pol Pot, Denver thinks that because the Italians and French wanted Libyan oil he suddenly stopped being a mass-murdering dictator. Sometimes no matter how much you want to raise a finger and explain in detail all the ways someone's wrong, the smart money's on stepping away and just letting the guy tug. The bull's going to provide the teaching moment eventually anyways, and when people are truly, completely, embarrassingly wrong I've just about decided that no one but the bull's going to do anyways. No one's going to admit that they're wrong in those circumstances, not until they eat their cereal.
Test Subject
#28 Old 30th Jun 2016 at 7:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermook
I'm thinking he's just milking the bull in any case at this point. Gaddafi was like the Scarface version of Pol Pot, Denver thinks that because the Italians and French wanted Libyan oil he suddenly stopped being a mass-murdering dictator. Sometimes no matter how much you want to raise a finger and explain in detail all the ways someone's wrong, the smart money's on stepping away and just letting the guy tug. The bull's going to provide the teaching moment eventually anyways, and when people are truly, completely, embarrassingly wrong I've just about decided that no one but the bull's going to do anyways. No one's going to admit that they're wrong in those circumstances, not until they eat their cereal.


'Scarface version of Pol Pot'? Really? Pol Pot evacuated the cities forcing everyone to work agriculture and he killed 1/3 of the population. He killed intellectuals, teachers, anyone with an education. He constructed mass-graves and tried to invade Vietnam to reclaim lands that were Khmer in the Middle Ages.

Don't forget. he slaughtered the Cham Muslims. According to Wikipedia

"The Cham community suffered a major blow during the Khmer Rouge rule of Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge targeted ethnic minorities like Chinese, Thai, Lao, Vietnamese and Cham people, with the Chinese suffering the biggest death toll of over 200,000 among ethnic minorities, followed by the Cham, and then the Thai. The Khmer suffered the biggest death toll overall. Around 100,000 of a 250,000 Cham population died in the genocide."

The Cham population hasn't recovered to this day. Qaddafi was a Muslim, and he respected the Berbers and Tuareg, the minorities of Libya, he helped them build wells.

Qaddafi built cities, he achieved the highest Human Development Index in Africa. He brought in skilled technicians from Europe and the Middle East to help build irrigation networks and oil wells. The comparison to Pol Pot is utterly and horrifically naive and invalid.

You clearly lack even the vaguest conceptualization of geopolitical reality or history.
Theorist
#29 Old 1st Jul 2016 at 9:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denver Hoxha
... geopolitical reality or history.

I guess this is as good a time as any to ask about your views of Enver Hoxha, vis-à-vis other major figures you've mentioned.

Ronnie de Noube - Comic and Blog; Sim National Laboratories and our Protein Folding Team.
@)->-----
Test Subject
#30 Old 1st Jul 2016 at 8:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by r_deNoube
I guess this is as good a time as any to ask about your views of Enver Hoxha, vis-à-vis other major figures you've mentioned.


Well I just the name because I like puns, I don't even live in Denver.

Vis-a-vis Hoxha, he was a dictator, he was a hardline Stalinist. While he certainly was tyrannical, it couldn't be classed as 'insane', as Hoxha was a polyglot, he could speak eight languages. While most people think of him as break from the Soviet Union on purely ideological grounds, it isn't that simple. Nikita Khrushchev requested that Albania be an agricultural supplier to the Soviet Union, all while Albania was in the midst of a famine.

While most people see Hoxha as a Maoist, relations had been deteriorating with China since Nixon Went to China (1971), and had Mao lived until 1983 (say like Brezhnev) they would've split. Reasonable to assume consider Sino-Albanian relations continued to deteriorate under hardliner Hua Guofeng until 1978.

While people make fun of him for building bunkers, his sense of intuition was pretty solid. In Eisenhower's first term in office, Albania, due to be isolated by Yugoslavia (due to the Tito-Stalin split, Hoxha was still in the Soviet camp) was considered a target for rollback. Eisenhower never followed through with State Department's plans to invade Albania, but they did exist in the early 1950s.

So Hoxha may have been a brutal dictator, and an idealistic hardliner, but he was anything but stupid.
Theorist
#31 Old 2nd Jul 2016 at 4:16 AM
So basically you really, really like dictators...
Test Subject
#32 Old 2nd Jul 2016 at 7:20 AM
Where do you get me 'really, really, liking dictators' from me pointing out the atrocities of Pol Pot, and calling Enver Hoxha 'tyrannical' .

It is common form of historical study to analyze a character, and then present the facts as a defense attorney would rather than as a prosecutor. It doesn't mean I 'like' who I am defending, It means I try give the devil his due so he gets a lighter 'sentence' so to speak. A renowned scholar on Stalin and Stalinism, Geoffrey Roberts, treats history in this fashion. If I do the same it doesn't make me an 'apologist', it is a form of intellectual analysis.
Theorist
#33 Old 6th Jul 2016 at 6:28 PM
Well at least we know where Denver's getting his love of dictators from.

Donald Trump Praises Saddam Hussein
Theorist
DELETED POST
6th Jul 2016 at 7:41 PM
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Theorist
#34 Old 6th Jul 2016 at 8:07 PM
Yeah, or that the reason they're in Iraq isn't because they weren't radicalized folks spilling out of Syria thanks to Assad being another one of those dictators Denver's been praising as some sort ally we should have been fluffing. Or that the other portion weren't radicalized thanks to Saddam Hussein and Maliki.

It's like the whole "African cell phones" thing. I think some people genuinely imagine the Middle East is entirely some sort of unified, backwards place where it's all deserts and... I dunno, genies and kids walking around with bombs strapped to their chests. People are so completely uninformed they've just got fiction to relate to. Even travel shows don't always fix this, because the hosts are entirely out of their element and aren't interacting with people on the right level.
Theorist
DELETED POST
6th Jul 2016 at 8:33 PM
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Theorist
#35 Old 8th Jul 2016 at 2:35 AM
Serious, when does the American society, with a special call towards police, gonna learn we live in 2016 and quit racism and discrimination? For a country pretending to be the best teacher towards other countries and being a so called developed country, it's really bad.

''Afro American + a gun = dangerous'' Serious, such people without brains and ratio are police officers. Are the American police academies literally just like that comedian movie series or are they randomly picked from the streets and just given a badge?

The gorgeous Tina (TS3) and here loving family available for download here.
Instructor
#36 Old 8th Jul 2016 at 9:06 AM
My state has just elected Pauline Hanson to represent us in the senate... so I'm not really in a position to tell anyone what do to (please note I definitely did not vote for her in any way, shape or form).

But I do want to share a couple of observations. The electorates in Queensland with the highest votes for Hanson are areas with lots of unemployment, not much education, and a future that probably looks bleak to many people. But they also have very low levels of immigration - and yet they are the ones voting for a party that wants to stop (Muslim) immigrants from arriving, because they're "stealing our jobs". The same is true in the UK for the Brexit vote - areas with lots of immigrants tended to vote to remain in the EU, and the strong leave votes, to reduce immigration, were from areas that had very few immigrants.

So maybe some of the Americans who are thinking about voting for Trump because he'll keep the Mexicans/ Muslims/ whoever out... should go and actually get to know some of those immigrants. Because you might find that they're not so different after all... and the problem is with the government.
Theorist
DELETED POST
8th Jul 2016 at 2:28 PM
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Instructor
#37 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 4:58 AM
Every Trump sentence has words. Sometimes three words. Or two. And they're great sentences. Terrific sentences. That I can tell you. Believe me. They're great. With the best words. Terrific repeated words. Not very big words. Every Trump sentence has words.
Top Secret Researcher
#38 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 5:27 AM
I don't vote, so I couldn't say who I would vote for since I would never vote for any of them. However, I will say that if Trump wins I'll head across to Canada and live there even if I have to be homeless. I don't like Trump, never have, never will. He's the last person I would ever want as our president, so I would seriously consider going to Canada if he wins. I hear Toronto is pretty nice.
Instructor
#39 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by haywud
I don't vote, so I couldn't say who I would vote for since I would never vote for any of them. However, I will say that if Trump wins I'll head across to Canada and live there even if I have to be homeless. I don't like Trump, never have, never will. He's the last person I would ever want as our president, so I would seriously consider going to Canada if he wins. I hear Toronto is pretty nice.


This is probably a cultural thing, as Australia has compulsory voting and (most) people see it as their civic duty... but if you have a preference between the candidates, vote. Vote against the most awful one, if you don't want to vote for someone. Go along to the polling booth, and put a number in the box of whoever's going to beat the most awful one (or a cross, or whatever you have to do), and then you've done your bit to prevent the worst scenario happening. Because if you don't bother to vote you'll get ignored.

PS - I've just realised you might have said you don't vote because you can't. In that case, please ignore this comment as it isn't relevant
Instructor
#40 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 12:42 PM
Here is the problem, if I have moral issues with both people running then how can I vote for one of them?

I think both Hilary and Trump are guilty of things that if they were not well connected, they would be in jail for, neither one of them seems to have any respect for the people or the rule of law. As for forcing people to vote, that seems like a form of oppression to me, I mean I would rather be shot dead then vote for either the racist, or the woman who doesn't seem to give a single thought to the value of human life, and that is exactly what you would have to do to me. What do they do in your country if someone just says the "the system is broken and I am not voting until it is fixed", do you throw them in jail for the rest of their lives, do you gun them down in the streets, do you torture them until they vote, how on earth do you force someone to vote without going to those extremes?

Maybe if we let the whole system fall apart to the point where the economy falls apart and the violence in the streets threatens those with the power and money the system will get fixed and we will get a revised constitution that reflects the modern world. That may seem extreme and not pretty, but as someone who studies history I can tell you that major political change has only really happen after periods of extreme unrest. it is never pretty or fun to live through and it feels like the world is falling apart, but in the long run look at every major political reform and look at the period just before it, it looked like everything was going to fall apart and that is what finally gave the people in power the push they needed to reform the system. I am not saying I am some sort of all knowing god and this is one of those times, I am just saying maybe it is and maybe some people feel that the best option is to just stand aside and let the unrest come, get through it as quickly as possible, and then deal with the aftermath.

I know this makes me sound like someone who doesn't care or is crazy, but I don't think that is the case. I am just comparing our present to the past and am wondering if we are reaching one of those boiling points where the only options opened to us are bad ones and the lesser of two evils is not to support the system as it stands in any way, but to just let it fall apart. I am no doomsday predictor, I had no stomach for that at the turn of the century, I am just saying that we need to consider it. Yes I know there is a good chance people like my family will be among the first wiped out in chaos, but at the same time giving that humans are humans that may be the price we have to pay every hundred years or so to fix the problems with a working free system. Then I guess the question becomes, is freedom really worth it.

I don't know, I don't claim to have any answers, only questions and my view of history as a long term set of patterns of human behavior, that repeat themselves over and over. That may sound like giving up on my part but I don't, I never give up, I just know my history and know that from time to time in an imperfect world blood gets spilled to keep things working, and the best I can do since I don't know when that will have to happen is vote for whomever I can support and if there is no one I can support then I don't vote.

I will be voting on the local level since there are some people running who I know i can trust on that level, but on the national level I am pretty sure I will be staying out for the reason mentioned above.

I don't know maybe I am crazy and I really don't care about people, all i do know is that both the people running seem like bad choices. If we could get rid of term limits for the president I would vote for Obama, because right now he seems the lesser of the evils and I know what to expect from him. The term limit for the president in country were Supreme Court justices serve for life and there is no limit to how many times members of congress can run never made much sense to me any way.

As it stands I would die before I would vote for either of the people running for the office of president.

My PC specs.
Windows 7 64 bit,AMD FX 4300 quad core processor, 8 gigs DDR3 ram, 1 gig Geforce 9500 graphics card, patch 1.67.2
Every time I reinstall the game I run it clean without any CC, not even the store bought stuff so it isn't CC or mods that cause me trouble.
Theorist
DELETED POST
12th Jul 2016 at 5:02 PM
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Theorist
#41 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 5:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMcNastySim2015
Here is the problem, if I have moral issues with both people running then how can I vote for one of them?


The same way that you do when you're choosing a dentist: At some point it's not "Is my dentist a good person?" It's "Is my Dentist capable of doing the job expected of them, and will they do it in that way that I expect?" If I paid too much attention to the character and background of most of the shitheads that have worked for me over the years I wouldn't have anything good in my life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMcNastySim2015
I think both Hilary and Trump are guilty of things that if they were not well connected, they would be in jail for, neither one of them seems to have any respect for the people or the rule of law.


And I'd counter that with Trump has clearly done things that financial connections excuse and he's done those things in the pursuit of financial gain. Hillary, on the other hand, has been "guilty" of things only because vast quantities of money have been spent seeking the dirt expected, only to find what's at best an extremely modest bit of dirt. Millions of dollars spent investigating Benghazi? The only fault they find is that they divested the State Department of security budget funds and that at 3am there was some confusion at an overseas Air Force Base that led to delays. Millions of dollars spent investigating Hillary's email servers? Well, you're right: If she were a minor functionary she'd probably lose her job, but instead she was the Secretary of State at the time and security classifications within her agency are designated as such under the authority of that position - if there's a criminal element you'd have to prove intent to harm the country, or that she meaningfully mishandled data that was solely, knowingly, classified under an agency derivation outside of the State Department (ie, part of a Defense Department, Presidential, or FBI brief.) Which makes it more or less the sort of thing that happens when the President talks about your top secret spy capabilities on national television, like JFK did during the Cuban Missile Crisis, except without the intent. Now, do I think she's likely done some shady stuff skirting the edge of the law? Well sure, she's a lawyer and having read her law stuff and the context of what sorts of law stuff she gets quoted in, she's very much a lawyer. Pushing the boundaries of what's legal is part of why people become and ask for lawyers. But that's not "works with mobsters for most of his adult career because he got his start running casinos out of Atlantic City" sorts of shady. The Clintons haven't abused people to become wealthy, they've clearly gamed the system - and been tireless crusaders for reforming that system along the way (even in instances where I vigorously disagree with their suggestions for how to do that.) Trump's casinos and hotels and property holdings? They're absolutely set as either a means of exploiting the poor and middle classes, or else to set the wealthy even further apart than they were. Hillary's a bureaucrat, and that's not fun; but Trump's a plutocrat, and that makes him a horrible person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMcNastySim2015
Maybe if we let the whole system fall apart to the point where the economy falls apart and the violence in the streets threatens those with the power and money the system will get fixed and we will get a revised constitution that reflects the modern world. That may seem extreme and not pretty, but as someone who studies history I can tell you that major political change has only really happen after periods of extreme unrest.


I'm so glad you're willing to fuck the rest of us who aren't nearly prepared for "breaking a few eggs to make the omelets." Why don't you fuck up your own life and come on through the other side a better person instead of advocate for rioting in the streets and civil unrest for the rest of us? The whole point of democracy is to allow for change without the sorts of revolutionary unrest that "students of history" might advise if they only pay attention to the systems where it's the only option. We're a democracy, maybe not the healthiest democracy, but we are one. We'll live. How about I come over and punch you in the face until you come to realize that talking about people suffering and dying as a good thing is a terrible idea? No? It doesn't sound like a good idea? Well that's what you're proposing for the nation, and by extension of our economic position, the world. Sure, you might come away from my fists as the VERY BEST VERSION of yourself... or I could simply murder you by accident because I don't pull my punches.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMcNastySim2015
Then I guess the question becomes, is freedom really worth it.


Yes. Absolutely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMcNastySim2015
if there is no one I can support then I don't vote.


And you've got the freedom to do that. Isn't it grand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMcNastySim2015
I don't know maybe I am crazy and I really don't care about people,


No, you sound like you don't even care about yourself, because you're presented with a difficult choice and you're wanting to abdicate that in favor of a vague hope that a bunch of people dying "because" somehow less represents you making a bad decision than you making a decision for something that won't that explicitly represents your own personal responsibility. Difficult choices make for hard decisions, sometimes you've got to work with people you dislike to get what you want. Sometimes you have to not get some of what you want to get some other things you want. Sometimes you even make decisions based on how one path will fuck things up less than the other. Grown ups go ahead and make those decisions, because adults have people depending on them to make the best solutions even if there are no right solutions. There's already an option C, "None of the Above," possible in simply not voting, but you're advocating an option D simply because you want a mob to make decisions for you on this premise that it's ever better for people to die and suffer than it is to live. And you've got the gall to talk about how you don't think you're god?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarVee
Maybe it just Egyptian mentality but I rather vote for the evil that keeps country most stable. This election has already given me insight to which candidate would do just that.


No, it's not Egyptian. It's sane, rational. Sometimes you pick the candidate that you believe will screw things up the least, until you can hopefully have the candidate available that can fix things.
Instructor
#42 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 5:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarVee
I'm not sure how to respond about that statement. I understand your sentiment, I too think both Mr.Bigot and Mrs.Liar are unqualified, but as some whom lived during two revolutions, I wish not to see that again. The blood and bombs and violence ... many children died when needed not and many people lived in fear of their own neighbors. As unsatisfied as I am with American government, I do not wish system to fall apart and cause chaos. There already enough chaos in my life just by trying to figure out American society and lots of chaos in 2016 election with all of violent protests. Maybe it just Egyptian mentality but I rather vote for the evil that keeps country most stable. This election has already given me insight to which candidate would do just that.


That is the logic that brought the nazi government to power. They did create a very stable government, that even with most of the world against it managed to hang on for years and people fought to the death to protect it, so I guess it was the right choice back then. Remember the plan to kill jews and others never was written down as official party policy and the government was stable.

As for Hilary not being guilty of anything she destroyed emails and it was her own party that cleared her, if this had happened to anyone else it would be seen as the cover up it is. Because she is who she is she gets a free pass treated like the second coming by most people. Well I am not most people.

Also I never said I wanted violence, just that it seems to be a pattern in history that major changes are preceded by it and we may have reached one of those points in history. When we have gotten to the point where cops are gunning down people in the streets and people are shooting at random cops and the two parties refuse to work together on anything, you have to admit it does not look good. That is all i am saying, that once the ball starts rolling on something like this it is nearly impossible to stop without putting some form of dictatorship in place or letting it burn it's self out then reforming the system when things calm down. If we have reached one of those points and it can't be stopped then I am just hoping a reformed system will be the outcome. Taking the long view of looking decades and not days down the road may not be popular, but it is the view I take because it gives me the most hope for the future in a present filled with chaos.

I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on this so i will just say this. I think voting for and supporting a stable government that stand for the wrong things can lead to far more loss of human life in the long run then a revolution now and then, so I personally will take the revolution even if I am one of the ones to die in it. I am not trying to avoid a hard choice and I am in fact supporting what I believe will be in the long run the lesser of two evils.

My PC specs.
Windows 7 64 bit,AMD FX 4300 quad core processor, 8 gigs DDR3 ram, 1 gig Geforce 9500 graphics card, patch 1.67.2
Every time I reinstall the game I run it clean without any CC, not even the store bought stuff so it isn't CC or mods that cause me trouble.
Top Secret Researcher
#43 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 5:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMcNastySim2015
Also I never said I wanted violence, just that it seems to be a pattern in history that major changes are preceded by it and we may have reached one of those points in history.


And if things do change from violence, how often are those changes a good thing?

My MTS writing group, The Story Board
Theorist
DELETED POST
12th Jul 2016 at 5:58 PM
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Instructor
#44 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 8:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
And if things do change from violence, how often are those changes a good thing?


It is a sad but true fact that you can never be sure until after the fact. Still show me a major reform in the history of the United States or Europe and I can show you a major period of civil unrest that preceded the reform. It's a sad but true fact of human history, but many people have been killed in the name of keeping a government stable, so that is not a good enough reason for me to vote for a government.

I hope I am wrong, i really do, but my gut feeling is that we have reached a tipping point and all I can do is stand in the middle and try to do the right thing and save as many people as I can, it's not much in fact it may not amount to anything, but I can't vote someone into power who I think will prove destructive to everyone. The sad fact is sometimes lives are going to be lost no matter what and then you have to take the long view and take your best guess as to which path will lead to fewer deaths and I see more people being killed in the long run trying to prop up a decaying government that does not have the respect of it's citizens then I do by the unrest that it will take to force reform on that government. I hope I am wrong but history has shown governments don't change unless the situation gets so bad that they are forced too. Maybe some new leader will come along who can unite the country peacefully and make the major changes needed, but i don't see that type of person being allowed to run for public office under the system we now have. Sorry I know I am in the minority here but i have thought long and hard about this and it will be the first election where I will not be voting on the national level because I don't believe either party will do what is right for the nation as a whole, or they will work at all with the other party to reform the system. if you knew how much it pains me to type these words you wouldn't think me heartless or crazy, I am just realistic in what i expect and I can't bring myself to support either person running for office. Sorry.

My PC specs.
Windows 7 64 bit,AMD FX 4300 quad core processor, 8 gigs DDR3 ram, 1 gig Geforce 9500 graphics card, patch 1.67.2
Every time I reinstall the game I run it clean without any CC, not even the store bought stuff so it isn't CC or mods that cause me trouble.
Instructor
#45 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 8:54 PM
Trump is supremely qualified to judge a hand size contest of toddlers. He knows those measurements from first hand experience whenever he's unable to hold an adult size pen to write a check to spend the $5 billion he doesn't have.
Theorist
DELETED POST
12th Jul 2016 at 9:24 PM
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Theorist
#46 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 9:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarVee
So what Trump has tiny hands why does that matter?


It's because he made comments about his hand size as if it mattered, during the primary debates. Gaby was satirizing Trump's own comments, which matter because he's the sort of person who thinks these things matter polling to people who also think these things matter.
Theorist
DELETED POST
12th Jul 2016 at 9:43 PM
This message has been deleted by HarVee.
Instructor
#47 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 9:43 PM
Trump doesn't hate immigrants. He marries them. Until they take half his money in the divorce. Oh well, there's always more silicon infused Eastern European mail order brides he can order to stand next to his jizz-rag topped head.
Top Secret Researcher
#48 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 10:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilMcNastySim2015
Still show me a major reform in the history of the United States or Europe and I can show you a major period of civil unrest that preceded the reform.


You said violence, not civil unrest. So, a period of reform without violence? 60s counterculture. Sure, there was some violence involved, but those incidents caused no changes (with the exception of the Stonewall Riots near the end of the decade, though that only worked because of the non-violent sexual liberation movements). The non-violent parts, on the other hand, led to the mass bulk of the reforms: feminism, environmentalism, the anti-nuclear movement, the Civil Rights movement, etc.

Also, not all periods of civil unrest resulted in a change; it's just that the only ones you hear about are the ones that resulted in major changes, because the history books don't find "Well, a lot of people were unhappy about this and they tried to congregate, but their movement fizzled out because things were settled before they really got going" to be worthy of inclusion. Just because we're experiencing some now doesn't mean things are going to explode into an orgy of violence.

And no, you're not being realistic. Have you done research on the things that happen in these types of revolutions, even when the revolutions win? Mass executions. Mass "unpersoning". Pogroms. Backsliding of civil rights. Witch hunts. Ritual cannibalism (yes, in the 21st century). There is absolutely no guarantee that a revolution will even turn out well, and given that the majority of violent revolutions turn out poorly, it's not likely to be good. Even if it does, we're part of a number of defense treaties. If the US gets forcibly overthrown, our partners aren't going to side with the violent rebels; they're going to try and keep the status quo. After all, their treaties are with the current government. And if we get rid of those treaties? We have no defense against outside invasion, so other countries are free to come in and smack around both sides while they're tender. For that matter, a number of groups are likely to try and get into the rebellion in exchange for giving them some say in the new government or destabilizing things enough to take over themselves - you know, like what's happened with every single violent revolution since the dawn of time.
You're not just talking about a trade of lives for lives. You're talking about a massive political mess that's going to have consequences on a good chunk of the world. As you said, you can't be sure until after the fact. The same holds true with what's happening now. For all you know, what's happened now will lead to some peaceful reform. It's not any more ridiculous than expecting good things out of marching with guns on government buildings (like, you know, those guys who took over a building in Oregon; that went well).

Also? There are more than two political parties sending candidates into the presidential race. You don't like Trump or Hillary, vote for whoever the Libertarians put up, because at least they try to protect civil rights. Or find one of the candidates from another party. It's better than sitting around, bemoaning that the world is going to end in flames.

My MTS writing group, The Story Board
Theorist
#49 Old 12th Jul 2016 at 10:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
The non-violent parts, on the other hand, led to the mass bulk of the reforms: feminism, environmentalism, the anti-nuclear movement, the Civil Rights movement, etc.


Homosexuality criminalization, the changeover from the gold standard, the end of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany, the bloodless reform that is the European Union, and an awful lot of colonialism was predicated by a peaceful changeover too. History's rife with bloodless transformations. They're not as sexy as the mass murders though, and there's always some asshole wanting things to have to involve violence instead of conversation and compromise.
Instructor
#50 Old 13th Jul 2016 at 12:11 AM Last edited by EvilMcNastySim2015 : 13th Jul 2016 at 12:30 AM.
If you are going to argue that the 1960s was not a decade full of violence and unrest, then I don't know what to say. I didn't say the reformers are always the ones who start it, but those in power who will lose out from reform rarely go quietly, and then there is usually at least some part of the reform movement that pushes back, and if you think the soviet union fell apart without bloodshed, well you are sadly misinformed. One of the big factors that pushed them over the edge was Afghanistan were they lost a lot of money and people and it caused a lot of unrest, but if you really think the 60s were a decade full of peace and sunshine and all the reforms happened without anyone getting killed, well I don't know where to start correcting that idea, so i am done. Well i could start with the fact that Nam was freaking bloodbath started because France asked the US for help in holding on to one of it's colonies, but that is too easy. Yeah the 60s was such a peaceful decade.

Sorry I brought it up in the first place, I just think forcing people to vote is wrong on so many levels. The idea that a stable government is better then no government is what gave us the Hitler, Stalin, and so many others, so forgive me if I don't see the logic is supporting that view point. Remember it doesn't matter what the government stands for you have to support the government or everyone will die, never question government, and always do what you are told and never try to change anything. Explain to me again why we don't just cut out the middle man and just have a king who rules us all from on high? I mean if you have to support the government no matter what then why even have election in the first places, aren't they just a huge waste of money and time.

Well as I said i am done. It seem I can't do anything productive here because you either have to be on one extreme or the other, you either have to support the government without question no matter what it does, or you want people eating each other in the streets. Strange to here in a political debate about the future of a country that was born from a revolution, but that life for you. No one ever said it would make a lick of sense.

Here is the bottom line for me if we have reached a point of no return with our system, and all systems do reach reach a point where they no longer work, that is something assumed the declaration of independence. Then supporting a system that is broken and doomed will not save lives, in fact it will prolong the conflict and get more people killed, and what comes after the struggle will come no matter what, so if the system is so flawed it is doomed to fall apart the only way to save lives is to let the existing system fall apart and work on getting a new and better system up and running as fast as you can. I am not saying we have reached that point yet, but I think we are getting close. I can't think of a time the country has been this divided since 1850s and we all know what that was followed by.

My PC specs.
Windows 7 64 bit,AMD FX 4300 quad core processor, 8 gigs DDR3 ram, 1 gig Geforce 9500 graphics card, patch 1.67.2
Every time I reinstall the game I run it clean without any CC, not even the store bought stuff so it isn't CC or mods that cause me trouble.
Page 2 of 9
Back to top