BruceVC

Yes I agree that actually even raising 1619 as an example of how the Dems want to recreate history is pure Trump grandstanding but its where he can be very convincing as he is able to add to peoples real concerns and irrational views If you look at who is behind this idea of 1619 its just a relatively small group of historians/activists and some people who believe this somehow matters but it has received serious and fair criticism from other historians on numerous levels. So it should not get the attention is has received....but I also am cognizant of how these types of events get added up and used as a political point to vindicate why you should vote for Trump And this election has been characterized by both sides making certain hyperbolic points which seem to be misplaced on how both parties should be gaining support

I agree with the view that this election should only be a choice for the 2 main parties unless a person can justify they have no concerns if either party wins But just on this forum alone in the last election many US forum members were critical of both parties and decided to vote for Libertarian or not vote because of disillusionment with general party outcomes. This is always something I have never really understood but sentiment that actual citizens have matters so it was clear to me my view was not reflective of the US political choices and reasons you should vote

GD there is another way to vote that I think in the USA is considered anathema but can be real, you make a strategic vote purely because you dont want a particular party to win or you simply want to support the principle of having real oppositions parties that can be significant. So you vote not because of policies or opinion but just to add numbers to a party I can understand this may be unheard of in the USA but these are unusual times so with all the current concerns people have with the ideological path the USA is taking you could vote for party x and its not because of the view you may have of that party.....so then this can lead to less anxiety about a correct choice because you dont vote for normal ideological views

This is one of those examples where I agree with Trump around the objective of the 1619 project and what its attempting to create or reposition around what contributed towards the history of the USA Have you guys researched what the 1619 project is doing or wants to do, its very concerning, inaccurate and selective around what made the US a great country. I wish I could say its well meaning but I fail to see how being selective around events of documented, proven history could someone be a good way of educating young people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project From what I have heard from people supporting this idea is that they have a view that says " the USA success was built primarily on the labor of African, American slaves " ......but they want to ignore all other developments and realities that many different groups made to the overall history. No one should deny that slavery contributed towards aspects of the US economy and industry but so did many other things, for example many of the early settlers to the USA came as white, indentured slaves..,...by that argument raised by the 1619 people surly we should recognize there early contribution as the beginning of the colonies and more important ? So things like the history of any country and especially the USA consist of many events like wars, trade deal, laws, independence from Britain, economic success and yes slavery was part of this and then finally how the US Constitution was created which defined the foundation for the legal and political future of the USA How can anyone suggest that only the industry created by slaves is significant ? On another criticism I have with the 1619 movement is directly quoted from the article which unfortunately I have come across before but framed differently where it states that the 1619 project " The project was envisioned with the condition that almost all of the contributions would be from African-American contributors, deeming the perspective of black writers an essential element of the story to be told.[" Why would an accurate account of history need to be written by a particular race to be considered authentic and acceptable ? I am certain all of us have read books on history that were not even written by a citizen of that country and I can see no logical correlation to this being a requirement for accuracy ? Finally I dont think the 1619 idea is going to become a replacement for normal history that is taught at schools, you may need to be more inclusive but not this suggestion of trying to recreate historical contributions And I have come across a similar sentiment occasionally raised in SA and the UK where there is view that places like the UK, SA and EU only are doing well economically because of colonialism and abuse of resources from places like Africa. And like the USA this is not a fair or accurate reason that the EU is a success. Its not going to lead to any meaningful change to think this is the entire story of why certain countries have different levels of inequality and how we can address this is sustainable way Trump claims California will be implementing this 1619 project into there school history curriculum, I find that hard to believe any qualified historian would suggest this idea even in a progressive, well meaning state like California ?

Yes I have read many of your posts around Barr, I am not surprised you dont like Barr but remember you are always going to judge someone like Barr on how he interprets the law and Constitution and then how he acts on it because its a field you studied and devoted much of your life to . Also many see Barr as a hardcore Trump loyalist and I have seen interviews on numerous international news networks where very well respected lawyers and commentators believe Barr is a terrible AG and has corrupted or is trying to undermine, to push a Trump agenda , the USA and how its legal system works......its all quite confusing for someone like me who doesnt really understand or study these overly complicated legal issues and court rulings So I focus on what I see on the ground and the sentiment expressed in the media and polling data matters .....its more accurate and refined than what happened in 2016 So in summary what I am saying is despite both real and unfair criticism towards Barr he is firmly part of the Trump campaign and Trump is narrowing the polling data gap?

I dont believe it does, its got a much, richer taste than chicken like Venison but because Ostrich meat has no fat it doesn't have the same inherent " nice " taste as pork or lamb

Hes not that bad....what do you consider are his worst things he has done that are really bad ?

I must add I endeavor to do my morning walk 5 times a week and it takes about 45 minutes. But afterwards once I have showered I always feel amazing and full of positive mental energy....most of the time

Last night for dinner I had an Ostrich steak with potato rostis A good meal but only unusual for my choice of meat but I added a cheese sauce which really worked. Now I know what some of you many be thinking, " Gasp.....cheese sauce with this type of meat " ...thats gastronomic heresy....you food philistine !!!! I would have preferred to eat something like Ostrich in the same way I would eat Venison, so a red wine or fruity sauce would be ideal. But sometimes I lack the skill or ingredients to make the sauces I want so I make something compatible And I added lots of additional heat to my cheese sauce like Hot English Mustard Powder and white pepper so it was more like a spicy, cheese sauce which went down well with the Ostrich 🍲

I have enjoyed this debate and I think you have made some good points and I have basically made mine, in summary I would say we have certain common views and then things we disagree on .....so its your normal constructive forum engagement. Until the next one

Hi Dan Just to clarify something important, I wasnt poking fun at your opinion on a personal level. Firstly a statement like " this election is the most important election of our lifetimes " is a completely subjective comment and also involves people agreeing what specifically makes election xx so important. You could quite possibly be correct but a real reflection of the gravitas of the outcome of this election, and all important elections and referendums, will only be known in years from now and sometimes decades This is common throughout events in history. For example Robert Oppenheimer , the lead scientist on the Manhattan Project, was deeply conflicted with the creation and his contribution around the invention of the Nuke. He was quoted as saying " Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds" because he believed that nuclear weapons would destroy the world in future conflicts but Oppenheimer was wrong because actually what happened was because of " mutually, assured destruction " and the fact that both the USSR and USA has enough nuclear weapons to annihilate each other there wasnt a WW3 and there never will be for numerous reasons that include the fact that several countries have nuclear weapons and no one wants there country wiped out So this election and how important it is will be truly understood in years to come and sometimes what we think at the time is good or bad can absolutely change and be seen as the opposite for the society But it still could be the " most important election of our lifetime" but not necessarily

Sorry for the belated response, I was busy with RL work pressures Just to comment on the important question you have raised above, often my overall point is misunderstood and people assume I am suggesting a binary choice " economy or immigration ". Not at all, these two are inextricably connected and definitely not mutually exclusive Firstly all countries have moral\ethical , UN and legal responsibilities to accept immigrants under certain circumstances like civil wars on your border or collapsed economies on your border like Zimbabwe and the hugely negative impact it has had on SA. So we must always understand and be part of the humanitarian objective but it still needs to be controlled and immigrants arriving still need papers or facilities must be provided for refugees that keep them safe until they can return home This is common throughout the world and the UN actually pays for it. In Africa refugee camps have been created in many countries except for SA where somehow it is seen as " unAfrican " but thats another story. Also it seems that only in the USA are ICE refugee centers seen as inhuman and cruel when in fact many such centers exist in other countries to process and detain illegal immigrants http://www.africaranking.com/biggest-refugee-camps-in-africa/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War_in_Turkey But going back to the main question, no country can just accept immigrants without managing the number of immigrants. You also have to be a growing and functional economy to accept immigrants because initially they will understandably be a drain on social services until they find there way So its not a choice between " the economy and allowing immigrants ", these 2 are connected but what never changes is the limited resources and how these resources are allocated

LadyC !!!! Im shocked, I have never known you to use such profanity ,,,,,,"buffoonery". Is such language really necessary ?

I have really enjoyed it and there have been several very funny posts " feed Imoen to the bear " and informative ones as well from a technical party selection and " best practice" around classes So just to answer Gromnirs question, its not even remotely stale until we lose interest in making comments which are either interesting, comical or both

Gorthfuscious .....how could you

You have certainly given me something to think about and I appreciate the fact you have put time and effort into making your point, we wont always agree but I always respect the principle of debate which is an exchange of information which is how you are posting around this topic But one more consideration based on your thought provoking beach party analogy, what happens if the party people allow anyone to the party and there is the expected revelry, drinking and hot women in bikinis ( normal beach party vibe )and suddenly the alcohol runs out because there are too many people both invited and uninvited...now any party that runs out of alcohol is a crisis 🍷🍻 But the only reason the beach party ran out of alcohol was because the original party planners didnt plan or allocate enough resources based on controlling the number of people who are allowed to the party So now think of the outcome......the entire party is ruined because there is no alcohol and the alcohol is a finite resource and you must manage your resources and also have control of who legally can access them But its not the actual beach and access to the beach that is the reason we limit access to the party, as you said the beach is large. Its the limited alcohol and party food we are concerned with

You raise a good point and an interesting difference, ostensibly, between the USA and other immigrant destinations Is it a fair argument to say " the USA was founded by immigrants so this needs to be considered when dealing with legal\illegal immigration" I am not saying you wrong but what does that practically translate to on the ground around how you gain entrance legally to the USA ? What I mean is that their is a huge problem in the US around people arriving on its borders and entering the country illegally through holes in the walls and or using Coyotes where they get smuggled in. You also have the unique reality, we dont see this even in SA with our immigration problems, where unaccompanied children arrive on the border or try to get enter the USA illegally How would you align the argument " the USA was founded by immigrants" to the actual legal process of granting entry. Would you say these immigrants must be given entry because then what is to ever stop any illegal immigrants from just arriving on the US border and automatically gaining entry and access to the limited resources all countries have ?

You make me laugh sometimes " Said a guy living in a fancy Californian neighbourhood with hundreds of thousands $ earnings" But to be fair to Hurlshot I dont consider him someone with huge resources or wealth or is someone who makes comments due to " white guilt " or these other inaccurate and generalized comments around why white people say what we say. He means well and genuinely believes in certain social justice values that he believes will make society better. So he seems to believe that illegal immigration is okay under certain circumstances...many of us disagree But you are right that when you live in any country that has faced illegal or forced immigration and the citizens feel overwhelmed by the level of immigration, like Poland or SA, many people are tired of being told " you must accept all immigrants in the interests of diversity and human rights " at the expense of the actual country, legal immigrants and the future prosperity of citizens who also have concerns about overreach around culture which can be seen as as being eroded by uncontrolled immigration

Legal immigration makes sense as most countries require certain skills that immigrants can hep address , no one should object to that but arriving at any border or immigrating without papers is not sustainable and cannot be just accepted

All countries have limited resources and this is an absolutely valid concern around unrestricted immigration or the expectation we see in many countries who are beset by illegal immigration and that includes places like US, EU, Australia and South Africa What I dont understand about Hurlshots article is how parents can send there kids to any country unaccompanied, who do they expect is going to take care of them when they arrive without proper papers at any border? In South Africa our laws and court rulings have taken the concept of " accepting illegal immigrants " to the point where its egregious and has become a real strain on our weak economy and limited resources where we cant deliver services to citizens and people who immigrate legally For example, in SA this applies You cannot deny public healthcare to any illegal immigrant You cannot deny public schooling to any children of illegal immigrants If you have illegal immigrants living illegally in any property you may own you need to somehow provide them with alternative accommodation if you want to evict them....think about that one? How is it logical and reasonable to be expected to provide accommodation for people who arrive illegally within your country? Our current laws actually encourage illegal immigration Now there are vast differences between SA and the USA when it comes to resources and general wealth but the risk remains the same and the idea or view that any country " must accept illegal " immigrants is a slippery slope and can lead to real social or economic challengers that citizens and legal immigrants now have to contend with and its not acceptable

You right, I must be confusing Imoens unappreciated Romance comments with someone from DA who use to annoy me I never use to Mod games when I first played BG2 so it cannot be Imoen

HoonDing Im shocked and disappointed by your callous and cruel attitude.... I had Imoen in my party the whole way on BG2, I dont remember much about her that was significant and after reading this thread there definitely seems to be better thief options than her....what I do remember about her was that she use to make annoying comments that were sycophantic and how she alluded to a Romance arc with me but I quickly ended any possible Romance with her because I could never cheat on Viconia

This post made me laugh " disgusting little squeaky pest" ...... Im sure thats animal cruelty !!! We going to charge you for suggesting " Boo genocide " ....you a very bad person

Thanks for sharing this information, I consider you a very knowledgeable and authentic reference for understanding the history of Native Americans and its not just your lived experience but what you have studied and have been involved in And that brings me to a question, I have watched several TV series where the reality of life on the Native Americans reservations is portrayed and in some tribes there seems to be a debate around "what is the most effective way reservations should be utilized to ensure culture is preserved but there is also economic transformation " Some tribes have built casinos as a source of legitimate revenue generation and I always thought this is genius and makes sense. I use to be a gambler and casinos offer restaurants, movie theaters, shows and become conference centers ...apart from the gambling which is great fun but there are rules about not abusing gambling which must be adhered to Yet I have seen there is some push back from some tribal spokesmen because they see casinos as undermining culture and basically corrupting the tribe And this surprises me that a legitimate business could be seen so negatively. A casino creates jobs and income and has much ancillary business benefits. For example this also leads to transformation like people that own or work in casino restaurants Whats your view on the benefits and or negative of casinos on reservations ?

No way this is the dumbest thing you have ever read on this forum, its far from some of the comments people have made. Oby use to tell us about tribes of " pure blood, Aryans living in remote mountain valleys in Mother Russia " who were the true ancestors of all white people