Guard Dog

Grrr, 2nd sentence should read KOTOR2.

For about two weeks now I've been trying to win as the Western Empire in B.I. I've tried stabilizing the revolts in the provinces and have had some success. But by ten years into the game I'm over 200,000 denari in debt and cannot retrain legions of repair cities and cannot get cash flow positive because of it. I've gone on the offensive right away and smashed the celts, franks, and berbers with the legions you begin the game with but end up losing half the empire to rebellion and still wind up in a cash deficit. I've tried rolling back into southern Gaul and italy, abandoning germania, briton, iberia, and carthage. But I then need to cut back the military so much I could not hold off the goths when they came calling. Has anyone managed to save the west on the VH/H setting and what tactics worked?

I would add NWN1 the OC to Category II. NWN2 had an ending, we just have not seen it yet. Once Team Gizka finishes we'll know what it was. But you are correct. I'm finding I have less and less interest in RP games because the stories are so poor in writing, organization and excecution. I think that is why so many of us are still playing BG I & II, Torment, FO, and otheres almost 10 years and hundreds of replays later.

Hmmmm. The only movie I've seen that I found honestly disturbing was The Exorcisim of Emily Rose. Perhaps because it was based (loosely) on a true story. As for what scares me? Well, all of the most dangerous situations I've ever been in, I got into because I failed to use good sense. So I guess what scares me is me. Or at least my own belief that nothing bad will happen if I do ________ (insert dumb action here).

Just curious Sand. In the context of American politics and bearing in mind the text of the 1st amendment, particularly the establishment clause, what does "seperation of church and state" mean to you? I suspect we will have very different definitions.

Not to be a kill joy or anything, but this thread was really just about a funny headline. There is another thread on global warming already that is more condusive to discussion. I guess it makes sense to shut this one down and concentrate everyone on the other one.

You guys are seriously over thinking this one.

To paraphrase Churchill those who would trade freedom for safety will get neither.

No.

Heh, not to go OT on post 7 but it reminds me of a funny story. I'm an avid SCUBA diver and I'm in this little dive shop in Ft Lauderdale getting an air fill. Ahead of me in line is this real loudmouthed jerk buying snorkeling gear with his teenage son (I guess it was his son). Anyway, he buys a dive knife tht was nearly the size of a jungle machete. Now any diver will tell you your knife is good for little else than cutting fishing line if you get entangled. Usually they are pretty short and blunt tipped. The dive shop guy makes a comment about that and the jerk responds "I need this if I have to fight off a shark!" I started laughing out loud at that, so does the dive shop guy. First of all, sharks NEVER attack divers (at least the ones around Florida don't, if you're in North California or Austrailia, different story). So the jerk shoots me a dirty look for laughing at him and I told him "if it comes down to a knife between you and any shark you are already screwed". So he asks us both "What would you do if a shark attacks you"? The shop guys say "I'd get away." So the jerk said "You can't out swim a shark." The dive shop guy answered back "I wouldn't have to, if some guy stops long enough to pull his knife, I just have to out swim him!" Anyway, guess you had to be there. Nice knife Eddo. Nothing says Marine Corps like K-Bar.

True enough there is a process to amend the constitution. And we have not done anything about it in the last 230 years because the large majority of Americans will not willingly give up any right, especially the right to bear arms. Eddo and I have both linked data to this thread that demonstrates that areas with a high rate of private firearm ownership have lower violent crime rates. So obviously not only are we not shooting each other it is apparent it is also a deterrant to violent criminals. Di, your post was the best one on this thread so far. Take a bow!

The dems have been in power for over a month now. Rather than pull the plug on the war (cut funding) they are bickering about how big their private airplanes should be. I've said it before the only thing I find more distasteful than a republican is a democrat. And there is scant little difference between the two.

Wals we are going over the same ground here. See my post 199 for what I think of regulating firearm ownership. I have already conceeded an armed insurrection could not hope fight off the government if the military is against it. But that does not mean it is not worth fighting if the cause is severe enough.

One other thing you guys need to remember here. We do have the right to own firearms but we cannot just go buy anything. Full auto weapons (and the conversion kits) are illegal by federal law. Full jacket and "armor piericing" ammunition is illegal. Explosive and phosphourus tipped ammunition is illegal. Both by federal law. Most states have limits to magazine capacity. Ammunition larger than .50 is illegal. There are federal limits to propellent charges in ammunition as well as projectile material. And even as libertarian and anti-government as I am, I have no trouble with that. Those are military weapons. I'm getting the feeling, particularly from Lucius (fed by Aram and Eddo's bravado) that we are all armed like private armies here. The array of legal weaponry is pretty wide, but nothing really scary.

"Well trained" and "regulated" I take you to mean the government issuing some kind of license. The rights described in the Constitution are guaranteed. The government cannot go in after the fact and oblige you to ask their permission to invoke your rights. Something you request from the government may be denied. That is why there are so few federal gun laws and we fight so bitterly to ensure there are not more. Now under 10th amendment provisions most states have imposed waiting periods, background checks, and other measures. In Florida at least (and most other states as well) if you wish to obtain a concealed carry permit you will need to take a safety class. If you wish to hunt or shoot on public land or public ranges you will need a safety card. But the difference is the state cannot deny you these things so long as you pass the background check, pass the test and pay the fee. To sum up, one does not ask the government's permission to exercise a right. As to yours and Alanschu's request I'm working on it now. It is pretty definitive IMHO.

You know better than that. But, whatever the Congress authorizes, the President signs, and the Supreme Court does not object is legal if not right. For example, I think the Mcain-Feingold bill is an unforgivable tresspass on the first amendment but it has already been passed, signed and survived a legal challenge. I don't think it is right but it is certainly legal.

Well said!

I'm doing something about it tonight! I'm turning off all of the lights in the house and going outside. I've got a case of Flying Dog on ice in the cooler, a fire going in the firepit in my back yard, and Jimmy Buffet CDs in my battery powered boombox. Good night all!

Article One wonders if the climate would better served if the event did not happen. All these bands, celebrities, promoters, roadies, staff, hairstylists, make up artists, cooks, secretaries, etc are going to need to fly to these cities. Most will go via private plane and burn millions of gallons of fuel. The concert goers will consume millions of gallons of gas and diesel to say nothing of the emissions of all of these planes trains and automobiles and buses. It will take thousands of megawatts of power to light their stadiums. So on and so on. It might be better for the environment if we all stayed home and cooked on the grill that night. Also, Live Aid raked in $1.9 billion US for it's cause all told and the bands played for free. This article did not mention where the money for this event is going. Global warming is not like world hunger. You cannot buy it food with the money. So I'm betting it ends up in other people's pockets.

I have often heard this statement, and with some introspection it makes sense, but I've never seen much in the way for significant studies. You did mention that crime rates went down after gun laws were made lax in Florida (which is good), but I'm curious if there are other confounding variables that I'm unaware of. After finding out how ineffective the death penalty seems to be at reducing murder rates, I'm curious if our commonsense is leading us to a false conclusion with this as well. I also said it is difficult to directly prove since we do not track gun ownership. However the counties with the highest gun sales have the lowest gun crime. That we know is true. And since the background checks, waiting periods, etc are the same statewide it makes sense if you are buying a gun, you will do it close to home. Over the last 10 years we have had two governors (a dem then a repub) and three attorney generals. The per capita income of the state as climbed slightly above the national average, poverty levels (according to the 2000 census) ranks Florida 19th of 50 (on the good side of the median). Our population is increasing at the second fastest rate in the US which usually means an increase in crime but that did not happen. I cannot credibly claim relaxed gun laws are the sole reason violent crime is down but it is hard to deny the numbers. Other than that I cannot think of a thing that would change the crime dynamic one way or the other. But that is just according to the site I linked and the US Census.

One of the points I was going to make (and never got around to) was that whining about things like this does little but exasperate and turn off people who might otherwise be sympathetic to the cause of the group doing the whining.

The American psyche is just different than Europe. The Kelo v New London ruling by the Supreme Court probably would not have even made the news in Europe because the mindset is that the benefit of society is of greater import than individual freedom. In America it is the other way around (to a point) and that is one of the hottest politcal subjects right now. I think (and devoutly hope) it will be overturned shortly if one of the liberal judges on the Supreme Court will do us the service of dying.

We are not talking about dispensing 'justice' in the vigilante style. We are talking about the last defense of life, limb, and property. As to efforts in crime deterrence it has be pointed out earlier in the thread that areas with the highest level of private gun ownership have the lowest crime. That is no coincidence. To fix all of the social ills (like crime) of America today you would need one of two things, a government that is willing to do the unpopular thing and radically change a welfare system that traps the poor, or a time machine. And even if it were fixed there would still be violent crime. The best you could hope to do is mitigate it. I would not ask a single citizen to give up their means of self defense, or enjoyment of safe and legal sports, if they do not wish to do so simply beacuse "the rest of the world is doing it". And the law of the land forbids the federal, state, and local governments to do so.

You need to understand something here Wals, the American and European mindsets are very different. Both are members of "Western Civilization" both industrialized and advanced. But to give up an individual right, no matter how outdated in may seem, is an anathema to the great majority of Americans and the social contract be damned. As we have discussed earlier, a law outlawing guns tomorrow will not remove a single gun from the street. It will not convince a criminal who has no problem with robbery or murder to give up his gun. All it will do is ensure when he breaks into my house I will not have the means to defend it or my family. If I called the police it would take them 5-7 min to get here. An eternity in those circumstances. Another thing to consider 94% of the land in the US is considered rural or undeveloped. If you need the police in west Texas, Central Georgia, somewhere like that it will take them a half hour or more to get to you. As to your second point. If the President were suspend the Constitution and dissolve the congress we (the citizens) would fight. But it would be a doomed and hopeless cause if the military were against us. But I'd rather die in the fight than live in the aftermath. Why do you think we were able to throw the Brits out in the revolution? If England was hell bent on keeping the colonies, damn the costs, there would be only one possible end to the American revolution: British victory. But to do so they would have needed to kill over half the population and almost all of the males capable of firing a musket. And at a tremendous cost of English blood and treasure. It was not worth it. How do you defeat a people who would rather die than live under your rule? A lesson that applies to todays world come to think on it. If you do a little reading on the intent of the founders, they intended an armed people to be a deterrent to their own government as well as an invading army.