Valsuelm

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.

Often when people try to, they are murdered. The powers that be generally want the African continent subjugated under a friendly to them tyrant or in turmoil if a friendly tyrant can't be found. Robbing it of it's resources is much easier that way. And there are numerous players on the African chessboard. Many of them heartless and ruthless. Not to mention there's a lot of racism still out there. Ugly as it is, to many, black lives don't matter.

He's not making sense there. That's not how the attacks are happening. However, it looks like he's a PvPer. Maybe I'll run into him in DoTA like I did Kim, and perhaps he'll make more sense there. Edit: He looks and sounds like a weird art dealer that might try and slip me some roofies at an afterhours party in Manhattan. I bet he's got a pet monkey. Then how are they happening? We know these guys were trained overseas. And why do you think he has a monkey? Magic. Seriously. Wizards! We do? Well then who trained them overseas? Couldn't be the U.S. or one of the NATO allies training them could it? I mean, I know someone over there right now expressly for the purpose of training military folks of all types, and the U.S. is sending more later this month. Wonder where the guns came from.... hmmmm.... Why I think he has a monkey is because he reminds me of someone I met once. A freaky art dealer (or that's what he said he was anyways) that tried to slip me something (probably roofies) at an after hours party in Manhattan, who had a monkey. Looks and sounds a lot like him. Maybe it is him. Politicians are often seriously messed up folks. Why do you feel the need to try confuse every single issue when it comes to these types of developments ? Can you not just accept something for what it is? Two disenfranchised French Algerians ( plus the other guy )who have explained why they did what they did. Its not hard to understand, its not hard to see what happened. Its not hard just to say " yes I can see this was an attack from a small group of Islamic extremists" And despite the fact the entire worlds security services have the same view of this attack, including Muslims groups, you somehow have a different story and expect people to actually take this seriously? Is that what it is? Evidence Sir Bruce! Present it! Oh, and again, evidence, not the words of someone on TV. Pretend we're in a courtroom, and you've got to convince a jury. Lay out your evidence that has so convinced you and should convince everyone. As for the entire world's security services..... did they all do an investigation? That's amazingly quick and comprehensive police work if they did. Also amazing team work. I'd have thought they'd get in each others way. Where's their report? Did you know one of the lead investigators on the French team is reported to have committed suicide before filing his report? I will accept something for what it is when it is clear what it is. You on the other hand just accept on faith what the media, government agency X, or politician Y throws at you as if they never lie. Tip: They're notorious for lying. See, there's a saying that I've found to be true: 'Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.' You seem to enjoy being fooled all the time. Now, as I've said, I'm not sure yet. It might turn out that what's being reported in the media is largely true. But they've been shown to have lied and pushed propaganda on this story, so it would be wise to question things. And even if the reported suspects are 100% guilty of what they are said to have done, there are still things worth questioning. I realize that's hard for you to understand, as you want the things the media and your favorite government agency tells you to be nice, neat, and true. But the world is much different and more complex than advertised. You'd realize that if you ever stepped outside your box. How many times do you need to be lied to before you actually stop trusting someone or something? How many times do you need to be lied to before you question what those who have lied in the past say?

He's not making sense there. That's not how the attacks are happening. However, it looks like he's a PvPer. Maybe I'll run into him in DoTA like I did Kim, and perhaps he'll make more sense there. Edit: He looks and sounds like a weird art dealer that might try and slip me some roofies at an afterhours party in Manhattan. I bet he's got a pet monkey. Then how are they happening? We know these guys were trained overseas. And why do you think he has a monkey? Magic. Seriously. Wizards! We do? Well then who trained them overseas? Couldn't be the U.S. or one of the NATO allies training them could it? I mean, I know someone over there right now expressly for the purpose of training military folks of all types, and the U.S. is sending more later this month. Wonder where the guns came from.... hmmmm.... Why I think he has a monkey is because he reminds me of someone I met once. A freaky art dealer (or that's what he said he was anyways) that tried to slip me something (probably roofies) at an after hours party in Manhattan, who had a monkey. Looks and sounds a lot like him. Maybe it is him. Politicians are often seriously messed up folks.

Birdman Great performances. Good movie. I'm still trying to figure out how good.

He's not making sense there. That's not how the attacks are happening. However, it looks like he's a PvPer. Maybe I'll run into him in DoTA like I did Kim, and perhaps he'll make more sense there. Edit: He looks and sounds like a weird art dealer that might try and slip me some roofies at an afterhours party in Manhattan. I bet he's got a pet monkey.

This isn't the first 'terrorist' event where the named official suspects reportedly came to be known to the authorities though a found ID under extremely unlikely circumstances. Very convenient for those authorities, and/or just super lucky. Twice now!

If anyone is shot in the head by a .762 round, yea.. their head is likely to pretty much explode, but explode or not there'd certainly be blood and bits all over. Anyone whose ever spent some time firing a .762 rifle and seen what it does to various targets can tell you that. Flesh and bone are annihilated. As for bodies and medical reports. The latter can be forged, misrepresented, gummed up by an incompetent, or even not done at all, and it's not unheard of for any of those things to happen. Here's a mainstream documentary about some of that in the USA. Here's another one. And in the unlikely event you get particularly interested in morbid incompetencies, fabrications, and cover ups after watching those (if you actually do; I do highly recommend them) look up the cases of Ken Tretadue or Kevin Ives and Don Henry for some enlightenment on how it happens as well as a great many other things.

That's not evidence. And it's pretty amazingly easy to fabricate what it is, as all you have to do is grossly misinterpret a situation (a common thing for authorities to do), or lie (a common thing for authorities to do).

You seriously think he was innocent to terrorism and hostage taking??? WHAT? Frankly, I don't know. But. why should I think he/she was guilty? Really, lay out the evidence. Evidence mind you, not just what talking heads on TV or someone with a badge says. Also, 'terrorism' is as ridiculous a crime as 'hate speech' as it is an abstract subjective term. A real crime, whatever it is, is concrete and not subjective. Murder is a real crime. Hostage taking is a crime. But are you that quick to sentence someone to death if guilty of hostage taking. Does a trial by jury mean nothing to you? Why were the police so gung ho to kill the guy? So gung ho that they set off explosions and fired shots that endangered the hostages themselves? But more importantly, evidence. Convince me they were guilty with evidence.

I never said I agreed with everything the guy said in the video, but the video itself is worth a watch. At the very least it dispels a very popular image put forth by the media the world over the last couple of days: that the masked man stood over the policeman pleading for his life and then blew him away disregarding his pleas. Mainstream media edited the video to support that narrative and give people that impression, and mainstream media lied. Video aside, one should ask why it matters more that two policemen died than a handful of people who happened to be in the building that didn't work at Charlie Hebdo. It doesn't, but the media certainly acts as if it does.

Food for thought:

Despicable. So the police/state/authorities say a person(s) does X, and then executes them in cold blood in a video and you cheer? You do realize that people are falsely accused by police/state/authorities of all sorts of things from the trivial to ubermajor all the time right? You do realize that people are acquitted all the time when actually prosecuted for whatever the police/state/authorities say they did right? It's not even uncommon that the police/state/authortiies' case is so flimsy that the case is outright dismissed before trial even happens. The guys killed may very well have been guilty of what the police/state/authorities say they are. However, we'll likely never really know for sure now as they aren't around to give their side of the story, and we certainly don't know for sure now. It's convenient for the state when the suspects are dead, and this one was all too predictable.

I know there are a few people on these forums who subscribe to conspiracy theories but I find them completely irritating and unhelpful. Its like they exist so people have an excuse to not realize the obvious truth and therefore don't have to worry about a solution Do you know there are people who think that ISIS is an American and CIA created and supported organisation, thats right the same ISIS that the Americans are currently fighting in Iraq You must be slacking on your regular dose of IronyGuard if you're finding 'conspiracy theories' irritating. This one wasn't even in English yet you knee jerk reaction to it, or do you actually read Russian? What did it say that was so wrong? I'll remind you again though that the official narrative is also a conspiracy theory in this case (as with so many others). It's not conspiracy theories you're actually averse to it's facts, thoughts, ideas, and narratives that don't jive with your world view as given to you by the main stream media that you're averse to. The main stream media pushes conspiracy theories all the time, they just don't call them that. As I've said before, if the phrase 'conspiracy theory' is a pejorative to you, you are brainwashed and conditioned not to think outside of the paradigm created for you and that you've bought into. None but yourself can free your mind. And yea actually. ISIS was indirectly created and funded in part by the CIA. Direct connections cannot be definitively made, but indirect ones can, and that's not exactly fringe thinking as even main stream media has reported on this. ISIS grew in large part out of the CIA supported Syrian rebels and in smaller part out various insurgent groups in Iraq, and that's if we accept the predominate theory. Does that mean the CIA created ISIS on purpose? Not necessarily, however, unlike many other government or semi governmental organizations in the US, the people at the top in the CIA are rarely idiots. One thing for sure is that ISIS is quite the nebulous organization, particularly for one that has an army and reportedly has control of so much land.