Calax

I now have an image in my head of a dramatic gun reveal in a shopping mall and the bystanders just going "Huh... that's new"

A parody of the Texas Govner.

And as a counterpoint to Iran is Lybia.

As I mentioned previously, the issue here is that external pushes for a revolution within the Islamic society won't work, for what amount to basically nationalistic reasons. It's much easier to shut down the discussion if the person is an outsider because "They just don't understand this based on their frame of reference". As I said in the previous post that I made to you, The idea has to come from within and gain ground within the societies. If you do that, outside influence can cause the amount of time required for the society to fully change over to lessen, but it'd still be at least a full generation before the society members in general were ideologically changed.

Grommie of the double standard! AHOY! Also, yeah, that is how the english language works you dork, otherwise you wouldn't have issues with Etymologies or the emergence of new words like "woot"

Obviously, you have no clue when I was in Highschool. Also Notice the last five words? Honestly, the only reason I got into this bs with a dimwit such as yourself is because you decided to call me Ignorant, illiterate, and having the attention span of a chipmunk on crack. You're effectively arguing over a level of semantics that usually is ignored in most casual conversation, and the primary point that you have so artfully ignored and removed from the context, was still in the original post (that the japanese internment camps were better examples of the point I was trying to illustrate than the average African American mans actions during WW2, and that I was not entirely educated on that fact because the school system I was a part of "glossed over" that fact so fast you know it happened and that was kind of it). I used the term whitewash because, as is often the case, the history courses given to students before high school tend not to focus on the failures of US domestic policy, particularly those that were un-PC. And instead just skimp over the facts before moving on to the fact that the American industry managed to grow so rapidly that we outproduced the enemy nations to defeat them, and that is how we ended up in the position of the worlds top superpower that we've held ever sense. And focus on how this placed women in a position where they could start to break the gender barrier against working in more industrial workplaces. So, is it "whitewash" in the sense that they glossed over it in order to entirely excuse the fact? No, but it's pretty bloody close. This all still brings your inherent sense of self-righteousness to the fore and displays the reason why most people, who can understand your posts, find you your posting behavior, and your attitude in general to be entirely distasteful. And explains exactly why several former contributors to the forums have departed because they just didn't want to put up with the level of BS's you'd kick up in order to prove your awesome intellect to those who's faces you don't even know. We get it, you're educated. Well guess what, so is a goodly portion of other members of the board who have educations within different subjects, particularly in subjects that you claim to have some expertise in (How exactly does one go from being a councilor in a juvie hall to being a legal expert on first amendment cases anyway?). Get over yourself and your reasoning's, learn to use grammar in your posts, and don't be such an abrasive ****wit when you decide to refute somebody, and maybe I'll start giving you a form of respect due to a seven year old again.

Hey... Hey Grommie... You ever heard of the Texas Board of Education? And their recent politicization of the Texas history books that try to paint republican figures like McCarthy in a much better light, and completely destroy the lesson that the mention of the item in particular was meant to convey? See? I can find a single instance of the reverse! Therefore I am entirely vindicated (utilizing grommie logic)! Honestly, I don't remember the particular textbook I used, so it boggles my mind that you would automatically ascribe the fact that you know what is in the book to having a section that made a point about the Japanese internment. Much less that that section would be utilized in the classroom and not just entirely glossed over. And I'm amazed that you magically seem to know what my English readings were and thus if there was any glossing over in History, it was automatically picked up by my English course.

actually, do it the reverse. send us the name o' your high school US history text... if you wanna push it this far. chances are we is familiar with your text, but if not, a brief email query to the publisher from an attorney asking 'em why their text has no accurate information regarding the japanese internment is likely to get a very interesting response. so, go ahead. don't be more of a clown than you already appear to be. HA! Good Fun! But you speak as if you already know what I was taught and what I read in my English classes, so if you don't then how can you say that I have to have known what you know and what was placed within other textbooks around the country? Or even what was referenced in my English classes required reading? Or are you operating on inference created by previous experience with the subject in other contexts and are projecting upon my high school career so hard you can do Powerpoint from your eye sockets?

Fine grommie, which books did I use and read during my tenure at highschool? And what was their content in relation to the Internment of Japanese Americans during WW2? Enlighten me. Prove your point with evidence rather than assertions and insults.

I didn't mislead anything you numbskull (although I guess that's why you never use proper grammar in the first place). Look and analyze the sentance you keep harping on: "but America has so whitewashed that out of the texts as best they can I don't have a very good read on how much of that was based on possible truths or pure racism." Where in this do I say anything about anything except the fact that my class/textbook had little information on the internment contained within? WHERE!? Point out the exact set of words where I give hints that there may be more than just "And that was sad" in this case given within a text that I was told to study from. You're self-stroking desire to prove your intelligence over everyone else in the world is getting tiresome. You proclaim that your own education and expertise on many subjects is enough to support any statement, and yet when pushed will show very little to prove your own points. This example has you taking a single word from a single sentence and using it to create a strawman that you can easily attack and knock down to prove that you're awesome. Hell you seem to be deleting/replacing the word "texts" with "every book in the Library of Congress" in my sentence in your head just so you can more easily poke fun and wrap yourself in pure smug superiority over the others around you. And are pushing the fact that I'm referring only to one specific point (the japanese internment camps) out of your head and instead referring to every instance of racism that was institutionalized within the US over the course of it's 200+ year history. You also make blanket assumptions about what a student is reading within his high school based upon your own personal readings from when you were in high school (what 80 years ago?), never considering the fact that highschool reading lists may have changed from your golden childhood. Wake up and act like an adult before posting, and actually research what you may be shouting about before deciding to randomly leap on something that's very easy to manipulate into a strawman so you can make yourself feel like the savior of the universe bringing the light of knowledge to the masses. Ha! Good fun! (This makes it all entirely without rancor!) Anyway, back to my 9 page paper about the reigns of James I/VI and Charles I and the rise of the British Empire.

I find your attempts to be insulting quite funny Grommie, given that the most intelligent thing you've said since you decided to derail this thread was copy pasted from an online dictionary. After all you're just trying to needle somebody over their choice of wording in a sentence that still got the concept that the poster was trying to get across communicated, and are writing huge essays on how badly that person is educated and how the youth of today are SUCH rap scallions who can't pay attention one whit and he's the proof. Ignoring the fact that this person also posted an analysis of multiculturalism on a national level and how it can be seen as a danger by those who's job it is to create a unified front towards external enemies, and pointing to some parallels between the Elizabethan era of England. Also pointing out that it's not necessarily the issue of different ethnicity's that generate problems as the one associated with the news story that started this thread, but the fact that often the pockets of ethnicity's will create their own mini society that will refuse to assimilate within the larger whole and create the issues where their own sentiments and ideals may put them into conflict with those of their current home. I mean, to completely ignore the entire purpose of an entire thread just to annoy one poster because you have to stroke your own ego and prove how superior you are with your internet-manhood would just be trolling wouldn't it? Hah! Good fun! There, that makes it all not troll!

So, making the entire thing into a footnote isn't "glossing over" the facts? Hilarious!

Grommie, I think your talking in the third person has made you think things that haven't been said. The ONLY thing I referred to as being whitewashed was the Internment camps, and the reason I said that specifically was because of the fact that in my highschool it effectively attached to the WW2 unit as if to say "So, we also took anyone who looked mildly Asian and put them in camps under guard because of fears they'd be insurgent... and that was sad." I never bothered to seek out anything else because I frankly don't really care about that particular point in history.

The marketplace didn't think there was a crisis in mortgage securities either until the whole thing collapsed. I'd say financing 40% of your budget through borrowing with no end in sight is a crisis, and that's even before social security and medicare turn to deficits instead of surpluses. Well... and this is silly... we wouldn't be in this position if the same people pushing us towards a default hadn't blocked moves to try to raise revenue via tax increases on the top 3% Why don't we increase taxes on you instead? Why do people always assume someone else needs to pay for them? Well, among other things, right now I'm below the poverty line technically. And because bumping up the taxes on the top three percent a very small number of points will create more revenue than kicking up the number of taxes on the lower economic demographics by a not-insignificant margin.

Are you missing Game Stop yet? The pay was probably the same but I'm sure the clientele was better. Yeah, I'm missing it. The clients weren't so much "better" (they still asked incredibly stupid questions that had you pointing to the giant sign saying what they wanted to know) but more respectful of your position. I'm trying to get in one that's opening up around here but the manager seems a bit flaky... they said they're doing calls/interviews "Soon" because they keep having to push back the open date.

The marketplace didn't think there was a crisis in mortgage securities either until the whole thing collapsed. I'd say financing 40% of your budget through borrowing with no end in sight is a crisis, and that's even before social security and medicare turn to deficits instead of surpluses. Well... and this is silly... we wouldn't be in this position if the same people pushing us towards a default hadn't blocked moves to try to raise revenue via tax increases on the top 3%

Boy... getting back here from Cali (I'm going home next friday) is probably gonna SUUUUCCCKKK given the next day the "Ames Straw Poll" is going to occur in the arena down the street.

A well written argument, but you seem to omit the fact that racial differences are...well, different from religious. Push came to shove many times in the US history were blacks fought in every war and still faced discrimination. Whilst in times of peril they were brothers at arms (to an extent) they still had to face racism when they came back home. The situation with Elizabeth involved a single ethnic group with religious differences. So even if they fight together its no guarantee of a well adjusted multicultural society, although I should point that attitudes have changed and there is more tolerance of differences nowadays. Even if there is enough racism to counter it. A few things: As to the idea about the race and particularly african americans being used as an example to counter my point, we never went to war with a nation that had it's entire culture ported wholesale into african communities, by the africans themselves, of their own free will. The closest parallel would probably be Japanese immigrants who were thrown in the internment camps on suspicion of their being insurgents, but America has so whitewashed that out of the texts as best they can I don't have a very good read on how much of that was based on possible truths or pure racism. And the situation with Elizabeth, while it did involve a single specific ethnicity (Whites) was probably no less divided than either the Basque or Quebec issues right now, except her political opponents were backed by foreign powers (mainly Spain and France), while Basque and Quebec are almost entirely home grown, and have no laws specifically outlawing their existence. (And yes, most of this stuff about Liz comes from my British history class) While the numbskull who performed this act was getting frustrated with the Muslimization of Norway, I'm not entirely sure that was solely based on race (I am NOT going through his personal manifesto thanks). After all, he idolized the Crusaders of the days of yore, so I don't think he's so frustrated at just anyone who's melanin is a different tone than the nordics, but is pushing against the religion that most members of Arabic decent adhere to. One of the dangers of religion in general is that if it becomes to strong, it begins to trump nations, and geography. And politically/socially I'd think that'd be a scary thought when all is said and done, because it starts pointing us back in the direction of the dark ages. Admittedly by the time of Henry VIII and Elizabeth, most "Christians" would go to one sermon on sunday then get completely drunk, screw a friends wife, and be dragged back to their bed by their mates at the days end (my teachers words, not mine), so the question is more one of how hardline would the average person be under a theocracy. Side note: The Current Pope has gone on record as saying that censoring Galileo was fine for the church to do, because the church knew better when to release his discoveries than he did. Also, Ros's point about how the average ideal changes, even for the most conservative among us, is entirely true (if a wee bit arrogant in the idea that the West MUST lead everyone else to "the light" so to speak). I highly doubt that any reform will occur within the church due to outside influence from the west, or any other major religion. Mainly because that unifying feature of the religion itself makes it far easier to eject the ideas and suggestions of others as being heretical. The push for change needs to come from some internal origin, and then that can be fostered with a little bit of help from the west (mostly though this would need to be minimized as to prevent "puppet!" cries) into a full fledged reformation of the Islamic church. It took nearly 400 years (ballpark figure) from the Reformation being kicked off to religion becoming a much smaller part of a national identity in the west. 400 years of violence and bloodshed between Protestant and Catholics before they could even try to live amicably, and it's legacy is still active in the world (for example, the new Princess of England can't ever become queen due to anti-catholic laws enacted by Elizabeth). The west might be able to squash that down a ways but it'll still be an INCREDIBLY long process that will take at LEAST a generation.

and this is the first thread version that doesn't have all caps title! In other news, I love the City of Heroes developers. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/07/29...ts-multiplayer/ Also, Dune two apparently has a fan remake that's gonna come with Multiplayer.

No, more the point was that often a nation desires to have the NATION be the focus of unity, not the faction within the nation. Basically so that when push comes to shove every person within the borders who nominally lives there goes "I am a member of this nation!" Right now, if push comes to shove in several locations you get "I'm a member of... them". Elizabeth's use of the church and law to enforce that culture is one way of doing it, but allowing enclaves of another nation to park themselves within yours and then not getting them to assimilate will lead to a loss of the unity a nation should have in the face of adversity. The Basque separatists in Spain are one of the best examples of what happens in this situation, or the Quebecker's up in Canada. Now, are the populations in the areas that members are discussing within this thread near that level or that idealistic? Doubtful. But the point still stands that when push comes to shove and a shooting war erupt in the area, would that enclave of a particular ethnicity who's entire culture is based around a third party (or even the opposing party) still support their home nation, or would they withdraw/rebel due to a lack of connection to the government that they're nominally supposed to be under. Multicultural societies work from a cultural perspective to enrich and grow the art, music, and other medias of their new culture. But from the political perspective they are a pretty bad prospect given that you have to work pretty dang hard to create a unified sense of this being a nation, rather than an arbitrary line drawn on a map by some goof a thousand miles away who has no idea what he's doing and who he's representing. Also, oro, I meant she ruled unopposed by her parliament. Not necessarily because of outside political dissidents. Neither of her successors (James I and Charles I) could say the same (particularly given Charles ended up loosing his head to Oliver Cromwell in the civil war between parliament and the crown)

Except in California you have a history of Mexican families that goes back much further than most white families. It's not like when California was taken from Mexico, all the Spanish speaking folks just up and left. Those neighborhoods have been there for generations. Same with any southern state in the US. Or the Basque separatists in Spain. Saying that being their previously means you don't have to integrate with the current dominant community is just garbage. If we stick with that logic, the current inhabitants of Israel should be running around with palistinian culture entirely, and speak arabic because they went streaming into the region after the fall of the third Reich. One important point about multi-culturalism, is that if you're going to try for it, you still have to create a sense of national identity and unity for your citizens. You don't want the minority members of your nation, who are immigrants from across the seas, to get strong enough that they can benefit from the economy and protection, but when somebody tries to enforce a law that they may not like (like enforcing a language requirement) they can just say "Oh, no... not gonna happen son". One of the interesting things to look at from this perspective is England when Elizabeth came to power in the 1500's. At that point Elizabeth was trying to divorce the Anglican church and her nation from Rome, and thus she ended up enacting a series of laws (still on the books today) that were anti-catholic, and enforced a moral code upon her citizens to push them into churches where they would hear sermons about how she was the deliverer of England from the clutches of the corrupt Catholics, and that all of her subjects should support her on their beleaguered isle against the corrupting influences of the Catholics and other nations attempts at subversion. This ended up changing the society strongly enough that she basically ruled unopposed politically, and is still looked upon as being one of the greatest royals in British history, even though the economy she had was about as happy as ours is today.

Even the cheapest of Labor in Europe that is done legally won't be able to compete with the stuff done in Asia and central america where workers rights aren't a big thing.

Why is it that they don't marry with other immigrant residents if there are so many of them? Maybe because the parents of the husband/wife to be are being paid to contract their child to the new immigrant? In California the biggest sentiment I saw was that the Mexican population that had illegally/legally immigrated were generally isolating themselves into spanish-only neighborhoods (so isolating as others mentioned) and that they were seen by the white americans as having a much easier time getting certain services (I had one woman tell me that the driving test for a spanish speaker was basically "can you read these twelve signs? You can figure out eight? Here's your License!"). Not saying that the latter is true, but the perception is what drives many to ask that the illegals be exported (along with the fact that they're seen as a drain on the economy) Probably one easy way to deal with an illegal immigration issue in the US at least is to actually say "English is the official language of America", thus only english language documents would be necessary for anything and so on. Exclusionary? Yes, but it'd also force at least some assimilation by those who are crossing the border just so they could try to exist within the society.

Motorstorm is awesome. That is all.

Got accused of lying at work to a customer when he failed entirely to clarify what he was referring to when he said "Are they hot and fresh?" 90% of the times, a customer is speaking of fries, this guy was speaking of Chicken Selects. Also, Borders Books and Music is going out of business.