Valsuelm

You guys are trying to defend and justify total BS by pointing fingers at other people's total BS. Irrational at best that is.

Do you really believe that or did I miss a joke?They even managed to quote Irving in that article. There's actually a lot of truth in that article. The major glaring flaw with it (it's not the only flaw) is the same major glaring mistake so many in this thread are making, and that's a whole people are being blamed for the actions of a relative few. The 'Jews or Judaism' were no more responsible for the acts of a relatively few number of Jewish people than the Muslims or Islam are responsible for the actions of a relatively few Muslims. Yet there's no shortage of people crying out against Islam. There's really no difference between them and the people who blame 'The Jews' for all that a few evil Jewish people did or are doing.

Welcome to 2015. Where there's people aplenty that confuse the refusal to print filth with cowardice. As well as confuse journalism with filth.

Are they BW target audience? There is a lot of BW fan fiction. But what you guys are looking at is the birth place of slash fiction. WTF is BW? Please, speak english and not this weird ass tumblr moonspeak. Some of us don't speak that language and are very confused by a multitude of things read thusfar. You're in a thread that has "weird ass tumblr moonspeak" in it's title. You might as well complain about pictures of women being posted in the '... creepy pretty women' thread.

To best answer that question, I strongly suggest going and finding out for yourself. You very often have opinions on U.S. policy (both internal and external) that don't jive with what's legal here or just doesn't take into consideration how things are done here (you are certainly not alone in this). While the links I provide below aren't going to give you the whole story, especially in regards to the latter, they contain information that is of paramount import to actually understanding the U.S. and even by extension some aspects of the rest of the world (as the U.S. Constitution has had a good deal of influence world wide). And, of course, they should answer your question. Read these. Do some thinking and considering for yourself, and you'll be ahead of a real lot of other people out there (including, sadly, most modern Americans). Reading it doesn't take long, thinking about it takes a bit longer, but do us both as favor and do so. Here is the full text of the U.S. Constitution: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html Here are the amendments to it: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/amendmentstext.html [Note that the pages linked do not note when the amendments were proposed and ratified, which is of no small import in many cases. If you actually read the texts I have linked, then I suggest looking those dates up for better understanding. It certainly helps to have good background knowledge of U.S. history so those dates mean something.) Also, if after you read the above, and do some pondering on your own, you want some answers to some of those ponders, I recommend finding what are known as 'The Federalist Papers' and 'The Anti-Federalist Papers', and reading those. There's more I could recommend in regards to various specifics questions that might arise (ie: various case law), but it's far better to discuss that as it arises and after one has the knowledge I recommend above.

Passports these days. When concrete is pulverized, these papers come out unscathed. Amazing quality. There's no blood or recoil when the police office is shot either; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P853PYcw90Q I'm no forensics expert, but I'd like to believe there would be some blood when a man gets his head blown off at point blank range. Anyway, I suppose we should stop asking questions. It's so passe. .. I'm glad at least one person on this forum understood the reference. If only a majority did; the world might be on it's way to being a better place. You not seriously suggesting that the 3 attackers weren't Islamic extremists who received training and funding, we now know, in Yemen? Nope. And I'm not sure how you extrapolated that out of what I said.

Passports these days. When concrete is pulverized, these papers come out unscathed. Amazing quality. There's no blood or recoil when the police office is shot either; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P853PYcw90Q I'm no forensics expert, but I'd like to believe there would be some blood when a man gets his head blown off at point blank range. Anyway, I suppose we should stop asking questions. It's so passe. .. I'm glad at least one person on this forum understood the reference. If only a majority did; the world might be on it's way to being a better place.

I got my hands on a copy of 'Back to Front' yesterday. Best concert film I've seen made in many years. Amazing show. Gabriel still has it. I only wish I knew he was doing this tour before his North American leg was over. Would have loved to have seen it in person.

Perhaps because it's not clear that ~2000 civilians were even massacred yet. Reports range from 'at least one hundred' to 'over 2000', with no one as yet confirming what exactly even happened.

The simple answer is the Fed shouldn't get involved because it's 100% unconstitutional for the Fed to do so. When you consider the negatives of the Fed getting involved beyond the fact that it has no legitimate legal authority to do so, the why gets a bit more complex, but the negatives are quite big. Legality aside, which is no trivial issue (though I know you think it is), there's absolutely no need for Community colleges to be free. They are already affordable to everyone (and grants are even available to many). You'd have to look really really really hard to find someone that couldn't afford it due to their financial situation, and if such a person exists their predicament is very unusual. Loans that fully cover the cost are readily available for everyone, unless they already took similar loans and defaulted on them. And if Community college is of any real benefit they will make the money to pay back those loans. The reality is that community college is not of any real benefit to a lot of people who go there. The reality is that even four year schools are increasingly of little to no benefit to a lot of people who go there. The more people who get a degree the lower the value of that degree in regards to getting a job. The reality also is that the Federal governments involvement in higher education is the primary driver of cost increases. If the government starts shouldering 100% of the costs of community colleges you can rest assured that the expenses associated with running them will become even more skewed and subject to corruption and waste than they already are.

Why 8-12? Why not 6-8? or 12-14? What makes you think that 8-12 is the magic number?

Attila (2001) Decent. A bit ahistorical in some places, but near as much as some of the Hollywood flicks these days that pretend to be based on history. Lots of hot females and a couple great lines. 6.5/10

The MPAA is kind of a dirty organization. That said, it's a private organization. One can't force transparency on a private organization.

Here, took me about a minute to find this: http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/12/01/about-250-fort-bragg-soldiers-deploy-support-iraq-operations/19741789/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin= That's not the entire story on troops currently in Iraq or on their way there but it contradicts that Reuters article and what you generally are going to see/hear in the main stream media.

This depends on your area and job requirements, and the degree type. A termianal associates (typically called an "Applied Associates") may meet eligiblity standards for a job or make you eligible for certification for a job. A regular assoicates may make you more marketable in general, but also in some areas may make you eligible for some jobs that requires some minimum of schooling (professional proctoring of tests, teachers aide, etc). This is a misperception of people who believe that spending a million dollars somehow makes something worth more. While it obviously differs by state and accredeting body, many community colleges are just as rigerous in their educational requirements as a 4 year school. But this is true for all educational institutions. A regular associates will generally make you about as more marketable as a high school diploma will compared to not having one. A large chunk of the certifications and such you're talking about are bunk. Yea, some employers might want you to have them, but in general you can either get around them (meaning get hired without them), or even find a better paying job that doesn't require more than a high school diploma. You aren't going to find too many high paying jobs that want you to have an associates. They either want a four year or more degree or they don't care if you have a degree at all. And it's not a misconception. I'd never state that just because something costs more means it's better. Especially in regards to 'higher education'. I live in New York, a state that is considered to have one of the best state university systems in the U.S.. Yea, you can find basketweaving courses and remedial courses at some of the four year SUNY schools (and increasingly at many private universities as well), but the quality and standards of the courses offered at the four year institutions is generally higher than that of the two. This is no doubt in part due to the Community Colleges response to the majority of their student body not being too serious about their education. While it's certainly ideally the case that the standards at the CCs are the same as those at the 4 year schools, the reality becomes a little different when a large chunk of your student body needs courses in things they should have learned prior to getting to college. It's laughable though that the standards of either are 'rigorous'. In general (note that 'in general' means there are exceptions) the standards required to get a four year degree from most universities is quite low and getting lower all the time. The exceptions are generally the math and sciences. It is also notable that the standards to get into a CC are generally lower than that of getting into a 4 year school as well. For a CC you generally just need a high school diploma or GED, for a great many of the Four Year institutions you needed a little to a lot more. In New York, last I looked (which was some years back), most of the 4 years schools required little more than the diploma or GED to get into, though some of them (those that are generally considered the better schools, like the School of Environmental Science and Forestry) have higher requirements to get into. Also, while community college credits are 100% transferable within the SUNY system as the community colleges are within that system (and I'd wager this is true in other state systems), you will find that nationwide some four year Universities and post grad programs do not accept community college credit. In particular some of the more prestigious programs. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Community College are 100% worthless. They aren't. For some it is a good alternative to heading to the four year school right away, and as I mentioned you can actually pick up a trade at some CCs. The folks that truly benefit are in the minority though. And to answer Bruce's questions: Yes, and yes.

It's pretty simple. I personally know people in the military who have been there post 2011 and are going there again in a couple of weeks. They will tell you we never left. Just about anyone in the military that isn't a lying POS talking head on TV will tell you we never left. And it's no small sore spot with many people in the military. That Reuters article is a blatant lie. Vals thats a very serious accusation you making. You realize most people would need more evidence from you to believe it? If you lived in the US the evidence would come from someone you might know in the military. Where I live, which is not far from a major military installation, it's generally common knowledge. And I'm sure it's also common knowledge around many if not most other military installations in the US. I also come from a family that has a number of military members (current and former) 'serving'. One of the people that's been ordered to Iraq next week actually happens to a family member. If there's an article out there on this I don't know. Not all troops movements and placements are advertised in the press, in part for good reasons (the protection of the troops) and in part for bad reasons (the troops are going to be up to no good or the Pentagon doesn't want to deal with the public in regards to what it's doing that would very possibly outrage some).

It's pretty simple. I personally know people in the military who have been there post 2011 and are going there again in a couple of weeks. They will tell you we never left. Just about anyone in the military that isn't a lying POS talking head on TV will tell you we never left. And it's no small sore spot with many people in the military. That Reuters article is a blatant lie.

Community colleges are generally two year schools as opposed to a four year school. You get awarded an 'associates degree' when completing it. Something that is generally completely worthless. Some students go to these schools for the first two years of university on their way to completing a Bachelor's degree, as they are generally much cheaper than going directly to the four year school for all four years. This, along with the fact that some have programs where you can learn a trade, is generally what Community Colleges are good for. The quality of education at most community colleges is not that high, and it's often referred to as '13th grade', and filled with people who are not serious about their education but have bought into the notion that one should go to college after high school if one wants to succeed. A great deal of what your average community college teaches is what students should have learned in junior high and high school. Community colleges are already affordable to everyone. Obama saying it should be free is a PR stunt and a move in the direction of nationalizing the university system here, as his administration has moved in the direction of nationalizing the health care system and education systems here.

The USA never left Iraq. That's a myth. We're sending a whole bunch more troops later this month to that place we supposedly pulled our troops out of. The USA isn't leaving Iraq anytime in the remotely foreseeable future, any more than it is leaving Saudi Arabia anytime in the remotely foreseeable future. It's quite dug in.

Not too much. A quick perusal finds that it is mentioned in the first paragraph of the 'History' section of the article on Rhodesia. It begins: "The ruins of the ancient stone cities in southern Rhodesia are a mystery even today. Nobody knows who built them. The largest ruined city is called Zimbabwe, and the remains indicate that the people who once lived there were engaged chiefly in mining and smelting copper and gold." It then goes on to talk about the non-Africans who explored the area first. The encyclopedia is Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia from 1959. I'm unfortunately missing the E and M volumes for the moment (a relative must have grabbed them at some point). There's an article on 'East Africa' in that volume that the article on Rhodesia points to for more info which might mention it again, and without the M I cannot look up and see what is said about Mali. It's somewhat doubtful though that much more on Zimbabwe is said. It's not a series books that goes into depth about the history of peoples. ie: It doesn't have a large article on the Bantu, but it also does not have a large article on the Visigoths. It doesn't however read as if those native to Africa were incapable of greater civilization and it does mention African civilizations and culture. That said, I'm not exactly of the uninformed opinion that one needs to have built stone walls in order to have civilization, nor do I think that building your average stone wall is a great feat (there are some exceptions of course, ie: infamously the Great Pyramid or much of what's in the Andes among many others). The Zulu for example did quite well without building lots of stone walls. They really didn't much need of them though, and I don't hold the fact that they didn't build something they didn't have much use for against them. Though obviously others do. For them: Really, to say those native to Africa somehow had inferior civilizations because they didn't build things they didn't need until the Europeans showed up is the equivalent of saying that Earthlings have inferior civilization because we didn't build X that we could have built that might have helped us out vs Aliens, if and when they show up. 'Necessity is the mother of invention.', and technology doesn't define a civilization, though it certainly can impact it. You can't hold things against a people who realistically had no way of knowing how X that they had very little need for might help them in the future against something alien and unimagined. And as for why much of Africa is still 'backwards' today, I'd say that some of it isn't necessarily 'backwards' (if tribe Y is surviving happily doing what they do, who are you to say their way of life is inferior?), and of the areas that are seeing oodles of seemingly endless turmoil, there's really not one that I've ever learned of that didn't have the heavy hand of foreign influence directly or indirectly making sure that turmoil continues. Because unlike what Bruce says, colonialism really never ended. The European, American, et al influence is very strong on African politics, and a great deal of Africa's resources that are being exploited are being exploited by companies foreign to it.

Please show me a textbook from the 50s that says Africa never had it's own civilizations. I've got an encyclopedia from the 50s sitting a room away that's got all sorts of information on African civilizations.

Maybe, but there is also an argument to be made that it shows bad taste to not acknowledge something for what it is and look for excuses or theories about a possible motive...or even to give justification to certain developments. That can be equally offensive to people who have suffered through a particular tragedy, don't you think? Nope. What you speak of is potentially far more offensive. However. First of all one is relevant to the topic at hand and one is not. And second, I'm pretty sure no one here on this forum is directly involved in topic at hand. Particularly having no relation to the victims. Correct me if I'm wrong. Questioning things about an event should never be offensive to anyone not directly involved in that event. If I was discussing things with victims or victims families, I'd use more tact on certain subjects or not even mention them at all depending. Anyone getting offended by someone questioning things about an event that is not directly involved in that event is as irrational as someone who gets upset because someone else said something unfavorable about their favorite professional sports team. And that might even hold true for those involved in event X, but that is situational. Fair enough, I support the intellectual principle of having two different opinions on a matter. So you right its not wrong to question something, the issue being when does the questioning stop? Questioning stops usually when answers are found. If answers are not found a question generally remains open. Have you ever stopped questioning why you're on planet earth? Or perhaps you've never questioned that? For those of us who have tackled that age old unanswered question, the question generally remains open within you unless you've found an answer. Some out there accept the answer to that question from others on faith, so for them the question is answered, while others do not. This is just one example, but it's basic philosophy and applies to pretty much everything.

Maybe, but there is also an argument to be made that it shows bad taste to not acknowledge something for what it is and look for excuses or theories about a possible motive...or even to give justification to certain developments. That can be equally offensive to people who have suffered through a particular tragedy, don't you think? Nope. What you speak of is potentially far more offensive. However. First of all one is relevant to the topic at hand and one is not. And second, I'm pretty sure no one here on this forum is directly involved in topic at hand. Particularly having no relation to the victims. Correct me if I'm wrong. Questioning things about an event should never be offensive to anyone not directly involved in that event. If I was discussing things with victims or victims families, I might use more tact on certain subjects or not even mention them at all, depending. Anyone getting offended by someone questioning things about an event that is not directly involved in that event is as irrational as someone who gets upset because someone else said something unfavorable about their favorite professional sports team. And that might even hold true for those involved in event X, but that is situational.

I don't see him as guilt tripping anyone. He's just calling Wals out and Wals deserves it. It was a crap post that added nothing to the discussion of the topic at hand. It's the same thing as if I barged into your 'Romance' thread or any other and blah blah blahed about you wasting your breathe on that while perceived by me tragedy X that has nothing to do with what you're discussing and that you could do absolutely nothing about had happened in a far off corner of the world. It's rude, pretentious, and not much else.