Guard Dog

Heh, I googled each of those countries and the word population. i pulled the numbers off the google synopsis without even opening the web pages. Except the part about Scandnavia, I read that is the Miami Herald a few weeks ago. Sorry for the sloppy research but I did all of that while stopped at traffic lights!

Oh boy, where do I even begin here. At first I had to recheck who wrote this. I thought Gorgon might have stolen Krecack's password or something. First off there is no "right" against higher taxes at the federal level in the US. There are some states that do have tax caps by law but most do not. If congress wanted to raise taxes by 90% today they could. Of course the next election would see them all run out of office, those that were not recalled before that. You need to realize, the US economy is far more consumer based than any other I can think of. Even Great Britan and Germany. For the economy to survive, the citizens need to spend money. Raising taxes has to double bad effect. 1) It raises the costs of production because income is hardly the only thing taxed here. 2) If the citizens have less money they spend less. You seem to be under the impression that libertarianisim and religious conservatisim have some kind of alliance (based on this and your previous post). Believe me on this one, the two cannot peacefully coexist. A religious conservative believes in a moral and "just" sociiety as they define those terms. They try to use the power of government to create it even over the objections of differing views. A social democrat believes in a moral and "fair" society and they attempt to use the power of government to create it even over the objections of those with differing views. Social democrats seek to supress economic liberty (they call it greed) religious conservatives seek to supress personal freedom (they call it license). Yes I know that is a pretty broad brush for a VERY complex subject, but bear with me here. Libertarianisim rejects both and seeks to keep both in check by keeping the government as small as possible, ensuring maximum freedom for all. Once again that is a pretty broad brush but of you boil it down to basics, that is all completely true. Comparing the social welfare in other nations to the US is flawed reasoning for a number of reasons. First off the population of the US is just shy of 500 million. The population of Iceland is 2.1 million, Canada is 11 million, Austrialia is 40 million. all of Scandanavia together has less people than New York, California, Florida and Texas alone. To paraphrase Ross Perot "You can't take the same business practices used to run a mom and pop country store and and extrapolate them to run Wal Mart (a major department store chain in the US)" You guys need to understand something here. and I know I say this over and over but I really think it's not sinking in. The US might look similar to the rest of the western world, we might be very similar culturally but we are governed and organized in a very different way. The federal government cannot tell those opposed to social welfare to take a hike because they are voters who put people who think like them into federal power. If Obama (easily the more liberal of the two) becomes President and has a fillibuster proof majority in congress you will not see the US magicly turn into a European style social welfare state. After 4 years you will barely notice any real changes in domestic policy. The seperation between state local and federal powers simply won't permit it to happen. There are too many limitation on federal power to make such a radical change. In no other nation does the individual states hold so much political power for self governance as the US. We started as a union of sovreign states. I've always said there could be government managed healthcare one day but it would NOT be done at the federal level. It would be done at the state level. And indeed it has been. Wisconson and Oregon are already working on providing health care for state residents. It is coming, just not in the way that you think. Sorry for any typos.I wrote this while driving to work.

Not a thing. Unless one candidate or the other wins a crushing victory (75% or better) it will go all the way to the convention in a dead heat. The superdelegates will decide this no matter how the next six primaries go anyway. The convention is in August.

How can teaching this be a good thing? Abstinence doesn't even really prevent getting so called STDs like AIDS or certain forms of Hepatitis (via contaminated drug injections, public toilets etc.), nor does it enable anyone to become a happy individual (unless said individual is a very spiritual monk or something). Jeez samm we're not talking abstinence for life here, just until marriage. Of course I can count on one hand all the people I know who actually did that. There are two good thing about abstinence, if you practice it you won't get a STD. That requires sex, therefore no sex no STD. The other good thing is that once you do get married if your spouse is no good in bed you won't know the difference anyway! Oh yes there is one other thing thats good about it, it provides an excuse for those who are... shall we say unlucky?

Neither of those were funny. This one is funny, it was sent to me by one of my friends in Dennmark. Evidently it's been making the e-mail rounds there.

You are completly correct on this one. I will agree that a free market economy works best with some controls in place. Particularly those that encourage competition like anti-trust laws. However, US history has many examples of too much government control crushing economic growth and crippling the economy. The attempts at price controls springs to mind. I am no anarchist and laissez-faire capitalisim without some regulation usually leads to exploitation but that regulation must be minimal, clearly defined and equally applied. I do raise a lot of points of concern at government expansion but for the most part the US strikes a good balance between control and free enterprise. But I get very nervous when I hear them talking about nationalizing private business such as health care. Too much government intervention got us where we are. How can the answer be more? We are wandering a little OT here so let me get back on topic by saying teaching abstinance from sex to teenagers is a good thing. Teaching ONLY abstinance is just nuts.

hehe, my god... and i'm an atheist. it is patient, indeed. taks Are you one of the people who thinks socialism on any form and in any way is a bad thing? You can count me in that group with the following caveat: modern socialisim (that weird capitialist/socialist hybrid that is common now) as an economic system is not bad or evil. I just don't want to see my country. The problem is it is inevitable, both political factions in the US are leaning towards it, one faster than the other. I think Atlas Shrugged should be required reading before anyone in Congress takes office.

No we should not. And you will find I differ with most "libertarians" on that one. A society with no limits on human behavior will descend into chaos. There must be some law and it should be minimal, clearly defined, and applied equally to all. By and large the US has that. Crack cocaine (heroin, PCP, and all other hallucinogenic drugs) will turn a regular human into a danger to himself and everyone around him. I don't think you could say the same about non-hallucinogenic substances like marijuana. Additionally it is entirely appropriate that federal law enforcement is used to enforce drug laws because 99% of all illegal narcotics originates from outside the US. Going back to your "iron fisted" comment. One of the reasons people like me want the federal government as small as possible is because it could be used to enforce a social agenda. You wanted the government to "mercilessly eradicate" any semblance of Christian/religious thought from education. Where does that end Gorgon? Next will you start closing private religious schools and universities? Or closing churches? Imprisoning pastors? All of these institutions teach Christian/religious thought and all are either protected of funded by the state to one degree or another. Using the government to enforce a social idea is all fine and good so long as you agree with that idea. What happens if the next thing they want to "mercilessly eradicate" affects you? There is a great little saying about the Holocaust by Martin Niemoller: When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. Granted what happened in Germany will never happen in the US or probably anywhere else, but you see what I'm getting at here.

I'm painting the kitchen and dining room today. I've got Bob Marlys Legend CD playing over and over. This one never gets old!

Well I tried to load BG and BG2 on my 90's retro computer but they won't load,. The discs are damaged. So I bought them again on ebay. The 4 disc collectors edition is up to $40 US for new. They aren't making any more so I just did it. I may buy another just to sell later. Have you guys seen what Alpha Centari and Alien Crossfire are going for these days? $130 US! Birth of the Federation is going for $100 used! I also ordered Arcanum since I missed that one becuase on NWN. Now playing Icewind Dale for the first time since 2001. I've forgotten a lot of it.

People are responsible for their own actions, their own health, and their own lives. No more and no less. Getting the US government involved in the personal dealings of its citizens is a slippery slope. Why stop at disease? Why not go a step further in order to maintain "safety?" A well intention tyranny is still tyranny. You are truly beyond logic. Have you ever heard the old saying about wrestling a pig?

Of course because a godless police state where an "iron fisted" government "mercilessly eradicates" all thought that does not conform to that sanctioned by the body politic is just what we want here in the US. I'm curious Gorgon, would it be enough for you to expel christians from school or would you go all the way to feeding us to lions too?

They are making Tory out to be really evil aren't they.

Unlimited educational opporunities, paid college tuition, interesting work, a solid resume addition, veterans benefits like VA home loans, travel, camradie, a career with unlimited potential for advancement if you choose, all that good stuff. Yep it's a real bummer. Calax in the Navy there will be good time and bad times just like college, work, or whatever else you do. You have no control over that. But being happy or miserable is a choice you make. Sand chose the latter.

Do we really need to turn this into another one of these threads? The Constitution doesn't say a lot of things. It doesn't say that Congress can buy ICBMs or fighter jets or vaccinations for enlisted personnel going overseas, but that authority can be fairly implied from "provide for the common Defence ... of the United States." It doesn't say that Congress can spend money on education or health care, but that authority can be fairly implied from "provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States." Yeah, you and the 5% of Americans who agree with you get offended by all this, but does it really have to be a part of every discussion of national policy? And, yes, the abstinence-only conditions on federal education grants are a silly idea. What can I say, I'm a one-trick-pony!

I think game forums like this one might be the only source left for objective game opinions. When was the last time IGN said a game sucked?

Alanschu & Krezack, you need to remeber the US is very different than Canada or Austrailia. There are well defined limits on what the federal government may or may not involve itself in that are not supposed to be overstepped. Of course those limits are ignored so often these days they really don't exist at all. But that dosn't mean I can't be aggaravated that my hard earned money, 30% of which is confiscated by Uncle Sam is being spent on trying to keep teenagers from having sex. It sounds like a fools errand to me anyway. Besides who's screwing who is not the governments business anyway nor anyone elses.

It just occured to me. The words sex, abstinence, education, or birth control do not appear in the US Constitution. Why is one dime of my hard earned money going to pay for this?

Total War games (all of them) make up the majority of my gaming now. But I do want to give Age of Empires and EU a look. RTSs have bucked the RPG trend and have been getting better. The TW series has taken a few setbacks in terms of the AI (too many zots used on graphics) but I follow the TW board pretty regularly and CA gets it. Empires will have a much improved AI. Or so they say. Plus I think Monte Carlo had another good point of the IE games feeling more like games and less like a bad cartoon. And I'm with Crashgirl, a double shot of "something else" for me too. I think Dragon Age is going to have what we are all looking for though. Just reading what little they let dribble out on their boards the three writers (Gaider, Kirby and Lee) have put a lot of effort into fleshing out the games characters. Or at least I hope I'm getting that vibe.

Stay with me here Di, I'm going to reply to points you made over your last three posts. First of all, take Michigan out of you mind. Only Hillary's name was on the ballot. Florida is legitimate however and should count. That alone would not put her ahead in either the popular vote or delegate count since Obama won 40% of the vote and 1/3 of the delegates in FL. The point I was bringing up is this: She knows what the probable outcome would be if the super delegates reverse the outcome of the election (assuming Obama wins more delegates and votes). There is a good chance it will fracture the party for all time. And she is still asking them to do it because she would be a stronger general election candidate (and she probably would be). I am reminded of Wendell Wilkie who ran against FDR during WW2. At the time the war was not going well but Wilkie refused to make it an issue by criticizing FDR on it. When asked about it he replied "I'd rather lose the election than see America lose the war". I guess Hillary finds that whole greater good concept outdated. Don't get me wrong, I don't think she should drop out now with six primaries still to go and her trailing so closely but if she comes up short (as is a near mathematical certainty) she will fight for every super delegate to overturn the election. That kind of naked ambition is a little disturbing no matter who has it. As for Iraq, getting involved in the first place was folly. Ending it now would guarantee another war in 10 years or less. When we were packing up to leave in 1991 we all knew we would have to come back. Our CO even said as much. If the job is left unfinished now there will be a third war probably following another 9-11. No matter who wins in November Iraq will continue until the situation stabilizes. Obama and Clinton are not dumb. They know this but are telling their voters what they want to hear. McCain is at least being honest (a bit too enthusiastically IMO). When I comes to the SCOTUS believe me you do not want Hillary picking judges. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was her choice. I would echo Gromnirs points about ability and judicial restraint being the most desirable qualities. The recent Dem court picks are based solely on personal policy preferences. I am pulling for Hillary. I really do hope the super delegates do hand her the nomination in defiance of the voters because I am curious what the outcome would be. And it is of small import to me who wins the Dem nomination because I'm voting for McCain no matter what. Not because I like McCain but because the alternatives are so much worse.

You make some good points Krookie. I don't use consoles. I have no prejudice against them, and I was actually going to give Xbox360 a look until I heard Mass Effect was coming to PC. As for online gaming I did a fair bit of that with NWN and it was fun but GW really turned me off to it. Plus I work pretty long hours these days so it's hard to lined up time with friends. My beef with Oblivion was it's lack of variety. Each fort, ruin, cave, etc was exactly the same as every other. They could have done better with fewer dungeons and more variety. Less is often more especially when more is repetative. Plus the dialogue and plot were, to say the least, unispired. But it was a beautiful game to look at though. I must admit though, mods do give it some replayabilty but not in the way NWN 1 & 2 did. As for FPS it would be more interesting in co-op play but it's still shoot this guy....shoot that guy.....shoot those guys over there...got them all....next building. What I'd love to see are more RPGs with some depth and characters that are not so... 2 dimensional. KOTOR2 came close but could not rise above it's flaws. NWN2 MOTB came close. Oblivion, Gothic, EQ and others did not even try. I have pretty high hopes for Dragon Age. Atmosphere is also lacking in RPGs and without that there is no immersion factor. Case in point. In BG2 they would play the cut scenes of Irenicus torturing Imoen. So while you out doing your thing, bad things are going on elsewhere. It added a sense of urgency to the main quest plot. Little things like that can have a big payoff in the feel of the game. Plus the whole save the world theme is tired. What made MOTB, PST, BG2 good was the personal nature of the main plot. You were not saving the world you were saving yourself/friends. It builds empathy and makes you identify with your PC. If I could give a dev advice it would be this: we know you guys can make them pretty, now make them good. Use a real writer to craft your plot and dialog and don't box them in with formulaic and politically correct guidelines.

You guys are probably right maybe it is just simple nostalgia (although I am not usually given to such things). The only game that gins up any emotional attachment in me would be BG 1 & 2 but when I discovered those two I was going through a divorce while working full time days, going to school full time nights, dead broke and skirting the edges of a real drinking problem the rest of the time. Every BG session was like a vacation from all that crap! Well my 90's retro computer may not impress the techo geeks but I think is pretty cool. Plus I get to free up some space on my real PC now.

Ok, here is the deal. I have about six computers in varying degrees of damage/wear and tear in the garage. I took them all apart and built one with the best parts of each. So I ended up with a 2.0 GHz P4 with 512M, a 60G HD and a GeForce 6600 GT. Not the best in the world, but capable. So I grabbed my XP cd and got ready to load when I got this sudden impulse. I rooted around some more and found a copy of Windows ME and loaded that instead. Then I found all of my IE games (Icewind Dale, BG 1 & 2, PS:T, ID2) and loaded them. Then went on ebay and bought FO 1 & 2 (never played either) and topped all of it off with HOMM 3 and MOO 2. This machine is a 90's throwback in everyway. What the heck is wrong here? I have new games I never play more than a few hours. NWN2 barely held my interest (although MOTB was great). I can't even look at Oblivion any more. I hated Guild Wars and have no desire to try the Witcher or WoW. FPSs bore me. What is it about todays games that drives us back to the old titles that are technically inferior in every way? Look at this very forum. The top topics are about games that are almost 10 years old! What is missing in the new stuff? I just can't put my finger on it.

36 and gearing up for that midlife crisis.

Here is an intersting web site. it has the Truth-O-Meter on it. basicly it goes through all the things that the candidates, campaigns and PACs are saying and determines if it is true or not. Worth a look. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/