Cantousent

Ice floats on water. It's not the only thing.

I actually didn't mean you specifically, but if you made such a comparison, then I certainly meant you. You see, when I said, if you've made such comments, I mean you, and if you did not make such comments, I did not mean you, I was sincere. Hades is probably the person I've seen do it the most, and the most blatantly, but there are others. So, I mean you, but only as part of the larger group and only because you've identified yourself. As far as the question "[d]oes anybody actually read what I write?" I actually don't read your political views. That started when the quotes were always messed up. It's also because you tend to have running fights with folks in threads, and that makes it difficult to follow arguments that interest me personally. I expect a lot of folks ignore most of the fights that spring out any time Di and I participate in the same thread. When it comes to non-political stuff, I read what you have to write, but your political theories are so far out that I don't tend to read them anymore.

I'm going to respond to your post in full, Di. Note: I am specifically addressing your post, and it is clear that I do so because I quote your points and then answer them. There is no need for assumptions on your part. You know I'm speaking directly to you. You have a habit of putting words in my mouth for the purposes of furthering your argument, and so it's clear that your assume the same sort of tactics on the part of other people. I don't mind the fact that you assume some of my comments regard your posts. Clearly, some of them did. I take issue with the fact that you assume every comment regards you, even when I make it clear that I am addressing a larger crowd. Even worse, you mischaracterize my comments and present them as personal attacks. Di, if my intent were to attack you personally, I would do so. Let me get to the specific comments. If you had read my stance previously in the thread, you might have understood that proposing impeachment for the presidient strikes me as desperate and ineffective. Here's what I wrote: "Trying to impeach Bush will be a huge mistake on the part of the Democrats. It's a losing proposition. If you're a Democrat, you should be glad that the President is falling on tough times. I presonally believe the President will actually come out better in the long run if the Democrats try to impeach him. No matter what folks think of the fickle nature of the American public, people are not in favor of impeaching Bush right now." Since no thread on this board exists in isolation, I will also quote another of my posts in a different thread: "For US citizens, really... really, the more you liken Bush to Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the more his stock will rise. There are a bunch of factors working against President Bush right now. He has problems at home and abroad. Even the Republican party isn't very popular at the moment, its base notwithstanding. While all the missteps aren't the President's fault, or even Republicans as a party, he's made enough mistakes that he deserves having his feet held to the fire. Still, there's nothing like having folks literally claim that he is the second coming of Hitler or that he just as bad or worse than Saddam Hussein to engender some sympathy. I'm not going to argue policy in this thread, but I will argue that, if you want to do real damage to President Bush, you'd be better off making arguments that aren't simply ridiculous on their face. The President can't run for another term. Nothing will better confirm the solid foundation of our democracy better than the elections themselves, when one administration will step down and be replaced by another. In the meantime, the Republicans never learned their lesson when they used the same tactics against President Clinton. You can demonize the President. Hell, that's the political process. Just don't make yourself look stupid in the process. It doesn't hurt the president, but it can hurt the cause with which you've associated yourself. " That, most certainly, did not have anything to do with you, since it predates your post by quite a bit. So, your comment: appears much cheaper of a shot than mine, especially in light of what I actually wrote in the post to which you responded: "I guess what I'm trying to get across is the idea that attacking his policies is going to be far more effective than attacking his person. This particularly true when the attacks consist of "he's a liar" and "he's worse that Hitler." Now, do me a favor and don't fall over yourselves telling me you've only said one or you've said neither. If you have made these statements, my point is directed at you. If you have not, clearly, my comments cannot be directed at you.[emphasis added]" You have called him a liar, but I can think of no instance where you have compared him to Hitler. Since that the case, why was it a cheap shot. Since my stance is largely unchanged, I would think that perhaps, Di, perhaps everything I write is not pointed in your direction. This is another case where you put words in someone else's mouth for no other reason than to provide an argument against which you have a better response. I didn't tell you not to discuss the topid. What I said was: "So, spying on citizens within the United States is bad. That's an issue upon which you can draw a broader consensus than saying that the President should be impeached. Moreover, raling on about impeachment might alienate folks who would otherwise join you." Where does that include an imperative not to discuss anything. Mostly, I gave you my opinion about the effectiveness of your rant. I think you were ranting. I believe the nature of your rant makes it ineffective. I do not, however, deny your right to rant. Hell, every now and then, I rant. The post to which you responded was more or less amicable. This post is a rant. See the difference? Here we go again. I said: "If you really want to be involved, get out and do some volunteer work. It's easier than you think. How many of you have actually called or written to your congressmen? How many of you have actually worked as a volunteer for a political campaign or on a political issue?" Where in that statement do you find the words "you are not entitled to an opinion?" I don't even think it's implied. I merely pointed out a more effective way to make your opinion heard. It is absolutely ridiculous for you to put words in my mouth. It would be irritating if you managed to convey my meaning in different words, but you didn't even do that. You manufactured a statement and then attributed it to me.

No, Calax, you're just weird. That's not a religion. :Eldar's grinning and making fun of Calax icon:

Di, I really like you, but you make me angrier than any other person on this board. Honestly, I was responding to more than just your comments. That's why I was so careful about the Hitler thing. I know you haven't called him Hitler, but it's all part of the same thing, and I have written the same comments elsewhere. Believe it or not, the Hitler comment wasn't aimed at you. It wasn't a cheap shot, there are people in this thread who have compared Bush to Hitler. Some of them in recent threads. I've erased my previous response and I'll wait to respond to your last post, but, Good Lord, could you stop putting words in my mouth? If I wanted to make a comment about you personally, Di, which I don't, I would have done so already.

Hating Bush is fine. It's a free country. ...But I don't think impeachment will get Bush out of office any sooner. Nor will it help the liberal cause. Impeachment without conviction is going to hurt the Presidency more than the President. Yes, I'm with you on the nature of the NSA question. I'm not with you on impeachment. Furthermore, the "Bush is a liar" charge has gone on for so long, in waters so muddied, that it has less and less traction every day. He's got a little more than two years in office at most. Go on to other issues. I guess what I'm trying to get across is the idea that attacking his policies is going to be far more effective than attacking his person. This particularly true when the attacks consist of "he's a liar" and "he's worse that Hitler." Now, do me a favor and don't fall over yourselves telling me you've only said one or you've said neither. If you have made these statements, my point is directed at you. If you have not, clearly, my comments cannot be directed at you. So, spying on citizens within the United States is bad. That's an issue upon which you can draw a broader consensus than saying that the President should be impeached. Moreover, raling on about impeachment might alienate folks who would otherwise join you. If you really want to be involved, get out and do some volunteer work. It's easier than you think. How many of you have actually called or written to your congressmen? How many of you have actually worked as a volunteer for a political campaign or on a political issue?

Okay, blame the meds, but that just confused the hell out of me.

I almost linked to this news item also. I'm glad you did. I have nothing against intelligent design. Hell, I'm a Catholic. ...But it was a bad battle. If I'm going to fight on behalf of my religion, that wasn't the particular hill on which I wished to die.

I'm afraid I agree with Commissar on this issue. I'm pretty damned leery of granting greater lattitude to federal law enforcement. We're proud of being free and we desire to remain free and safe from foreign invaders. Let's just make sure we don't put ourselves under the heal of a domestic strongman in order to protect our rights against outside influence. I don't think the measures themselves deserve the panic they've engendered in some folks, but I'm not happy to have the federal government spy on US citizens within the United States.

I believe Hans Blix stated, after we invaded, that he was suprised that there were no weapons. Hans Blix stated, before the war, that we should give the inspectors more time. He did not say that Iraq had no weapons. Frankly, most folks believed we would find weapons. The point was that some folks wanted to wait for the inspection process to work. Others didn't believe that the inspection process would work. After the fact, many folks have come forth and said that they never believed we would find weapons. For some, the record verifies this stance. Most folks who argued against the war, however, didn't argue against the existence of such weapons, merely against war as the means to secure them.

Giving a little of the truth in order to further a lie is worse than a lie itself. For shaem, MacLeodCorp. For shame. I'm sure someone else will go over that list in detail, but it's just galling to have someone use these tactics. You know why Democrats in office don't list out these details in National television? Because they don't want to be associated with the charages. However, provide links to all of these occurences or provide references to where we can see the full account in print. I want to know your sources. I'm familar with the events, but I'd like to know where you're getting your information. Furthermore, nothing you've detailed provides grounds for impeachment. This sort of anecdotal stuff just provide such a basis.

I refer you to my previous answer.

Bush was accountable for the war. He won a second term. Other than that, unless he commits a crime worthy of impeachment, which he has not, you cannot charge him for his mistakes as president. That's true no matter how you view his decisions. I tell you what, let's put together a law that says we can hold to trial and execute folks who don't make decisions with which you, personally, agree. That sounds like a plan worthy of democracy. Mob rule is democracy in its purest form, isn't it? Listen, rail against the president all you want, but, and I will say this again, lists such as yours don't help your cause. Folks look at such lists and think, "wow, this guy is crazy." Either you're crazy because you believe all this non-sense or you're crazy because you don't believe it but hope that it's convincing enough to sway public opinion. Newsflash, the president's approval ratings have started to rise over the past week. Is that because he's doing anything dramatically different? Of course not. It's mostly because he made a speech to defend himself and because the economy isn't as bad as folks have made out over the past year. Lower fuel prices are certainly helping. So, the insane rhetoric isn't helping your case at all. ...But it sure as hell can hurt your cause.

Actually, I'm quite fond of the third post, Kaftan. The landscape has an oddly fascinating quality.

You would summarily kill illegal immigrants? :Eldar's shaking his head with an irritated grimace icon:

Okay, Azarkon, but could you please assist me in avoiding these irritating misunderstandings in the future. I believe Athens at the time of Pericles is the true exception. I love my country, and I think, on the balance, it is the force for good in the world, but my comments regarding American Exceptionalism haven't relied on manifest destiny or any other such concept. Otherwise, you are fixated on progressivism while I am not. Since that's an issue for you to hash out with other members here, I'll let the issue go. I will content myself to point out that, if you equate progressivism with communism or any such concept, I disagree with you. As far as reinventing ourselves, it's clear that nations have all sorts of resurgences over time. The republic of Rome had all sorts of twists and turns and risings and fallings and reinventions but it remained Rome. Of course, it was doomed and thus it became Empire. The point is, these things ebb and flow and it is not necessarily true that a reinvented United States will be so different from the current one. Only that some key aspect will change. Look at it this way, you are obviously a great admirer of liberal progressivism. Didn't the United States reinvent itself during the great depression? Other than that, I'm willing to let our comments stands side by side for others to judge.

My comment on the article is that I was excited when they were talking about Obsidian working with the community until I realized that we aren't Obsidian's community here. The Bioware board is Obsidian's community. We're just wayward children. That might not be the aspect of the article you wanted to discuss, but that's the aspect of the article that struck me.

To begin on such a premise means you've already foregone any alternative view, so I'm not sure how you would like me to respond except to shake my head at such patriotic fervor. In terms of objectivity, you might just wanna remember that dozens of civilizations have been, at some point or another, the most powerful and influential civilizations in the world. Relatively speaking, since historical trend seems to tend towards increasing globalization, there is no surprise that the US is more "powerful" today relative to the rest of the world than any past civilization has been. Even so, this is a recent phenomenon (after all, it was only after the Cold War ended that US hegemony began). And it is passing, as well, as in the next fifty years other superpowers such as China and the EU will surely challenge US unilateralism. I simply hope that the US will not resort to nuclear warfare in attempting to prevent such inevitabilities. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What are we if not exceptional? Right now, we are the exception, and while you might call this semantics, I do not. We are the exception to the rule in terms of our economic prowess. We are the exception in terms of our military prowess. We are undoubtedly the exception in terms of our arrogance. You think it's nationalistic fervor to see something that is clear. Folks write about how we won't have the largest economy forever. Clearly, clearly, we must have the largest economy now for that statement to be true. After all, how can we cease being first if we are not first now? At any rate, you then go on to concede that America is the strongest power in terms of its relative power. ...But I can't say that it is exceptional? ...A term, I believe, you used first in our argument. Well, should you not like the term "exceptional" to describe the fact that the United States is the most powerful nation on earth (a point on which we both agree), then tell me what term you'd like to use so I'm not forced to write such unwieldly phrases as "the most powerful nation on earth." As far as "narcissism" goes, I will content myself to point out that Rome didn't have one steady rise to power followed by a steady fall. The Republic, which lasted some 500 years was at war, I believe, all but two years. It had victories and defeats during all that time. The Empire, which lasted some 500 years, was much more peaceful by comparison. It certainly wasn't peaceful, but it was comparatively peaceful. So, it's not so cut and dried. However, I do agree that a nation on the rise has different characteristics than a nation that must preserve its dominance. Now, I don't disagree that power ebbs and flows, but we don't have a crystal ball. We can't just hold a revival and ask the Lord. The attitudes Americans exhibit could be an indication of a society on the verge of collapse. Just as likely, American attitudes can be the sign of a society in the process of reinventing itself. Sure, there will come a day when the United States is in a final decline, but I don't know when it will be. You don't either. If you're sure, your certainty is a foolish attribute in what is otherwise a fine mind. Finally, Livy was a historian and Virgil was a poet. I can come up with political speeches also if that helps. Face it, nationalistic rhetoric attends virtually all countries, even ones that aren't significant on a global scale. It's only ironic when those speeches come right before the fall.

This nonsense really bites. Someone muscled the fora over to Bioware and these boards are going to languish. I don't mind the fac that Bioware handles the NWN2 boards but there's nothing substantial going on here. KotOR 2? Come on, it's nice and all, but there's got to be more than that to pump a little life into this place. I honestly don't even think Obsidian cares about these fora. At least for a while Feargus was posting. I appreciate some of the devs posting here, but I wish we had some word on the next project. oh well, I keep hoping for an announcement. I'm sure we'll get one soon. :Eldar's hopefull while waiting for an announcement regarding PNJ icon:

Oh, there are actual mistakes, but it provides an excellent frame of reference. I don't use it very often personally, but I will use it from time to time. This is especially true if I haven't even heard of something. To be fair, however, I mostly use it when other folks link to it. meta, anyone? Where is the bastard, anyhow. He lurves wiki

Sad to say, but that's actually quite efficient. It made the rest of the platoon work together as a team, it culled the weak (who more than likely will be discharged if he has not already been so), and made the whole bunch tougher for the experience. Thank the lord I'm not there. thankyouthankyouthankyou. No matter how ugly it is, it's better than the individual in question getting his whole platoon killed in battle. ...And yeah, I'm a wimp, so I hate hearing about/witnessing this stuff as well.

Very good, SP. hahaha

Trying to impeach Bush will be a huge mistake on the part of the Democrats. It's a losing proposition. If you're a Democrat, you should be glad that the President is falling on tough times. I presonally believe the President will actually come out better in the long run if the Democrats try to impeach him. No matter what folks think of the fickle nature of the American public, people are not in favor of impeaching Bush right now. As far as arguing policy and whatnot... *shrug* I'm not wasting my breath just yet. I'll save that for when someone manages to get my goat.

I

I dunno, I think Silent Hill 2 has potential. I didn't like the combat in Silent Hill 4, but I've been told that the combat system was better in previous games. I mean, if the price is right, not all of them have to be winners. Just enough to get your enjoyment out of them.