No it didn't. I thought economists stated that his socialist policies actually prolonged the depression and needed WW2 to bail him out. The market would always recover quicker without gov intervention.Turquoise wrote:
Coolidge tried the laissez faire approach. It failed.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Lassie Faire and Personal Responsibility. What concepts! Unacceptable in this age. Government must run everything. This is now the American way.LividBovine wrote:
I feel we shouldn't have bailed anything out. Let the pieces fall and keep our fingers out of the pie. The free market would have recovered at the appropriate rate. If people suffer financially because of not saving enough, over-speculating, and building so much debt, then oh well. Maybe they will learn a lesson in being good stewards of their families welfare.
FDR took the socialist approach. It worked.
Search
Search results: 85 found, showing up to 50
I live in Cedar Rapids and they're telling us to ration water, as electrical outages are affecting water treatment, which is running at 25%. We're told to use water for drinking only.Protecus wrote:
On the other hand, over here on the west coast, we're barely over 50% of annual average rain fall. Gov. Arnie has actually declared it an emergency, asking people to start cutting back and rationing water to extend reserves.
Wanna share the wealth?
I live in Iowa and attended the caucus and would never call Iowa, "the Bible belt." The Bible belt is in the deep south, not here.topthrill05 wrote:
YAHOOOOOOOOO Obama bitch!
And thank that damn bible belt for not voting for Romney. I don't like Huckabee much either but the last thing we need is that 2 faced bastard. This also proves those who spend the most don't always win.
Hell yeah. I am so damn happy.
Here's my ten:
Benjamin Franklin
George Washington
Abraham Lincoln
Martin Luther King
Bill Gates
Thomas Edison
Henry Ford
Mark Twain
Walt Disney
Lance Armstrong
There...I covered everyone from politics, humanitarians, science, business, literature, entertainment, and sports.
Benjamin Franklin
George Washington
Abraham Lincoln
Martin Luther King
Bill Gates
Thomas Edison
Henry Ford
Mark Twain
Walt Disney
Lance Armstrong
There...I covered everyone from politics, humanitarians, science, business, literature, entertainment, and sports.
Cool--six of the seven I voted for "won." For the seventh, I voted for Stone Henge and not Christ the Redeemer Statue. I didn't get that one. Of course, it might have won due to reports of Latin American ballot stuffing.
+1 for perfectly correcting another simple minded fool.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
No he does notm3thod wrote:
Documentary or no documentary he presents facts does he not ?I on the other hand am not guessing. No, he does not get sued ( and here lies the Fact of the matter ) He can not be sued, Because it is an OP ED not a factual documentary.m3thod wrote:
I am only harbouring a guess as i would expect a spate of lawsuits if he went about slandering people and spouting false assertions...
Had he made the claim “it’s a documentary “ been he would have had his ass handed to him because you cannot make up stories about people just to slander them.
This is what cost Alexander Hamilton his life in Jersey City.Its a case of you not having the facts and now you do.m3thod wrote:
Is this a case of the truth hurts?
People if you do any research behind Fahrenheit 9-11 and Bowling for Columbine, Moore carefully edits and takes a lot of "facts" out of context where they become false. Regardless of his points, he does MORE damage due to lack of credibility.
Confused, where did you get your education?konfusion wrote:
I know, that's what so sad about it. As long as the USA supports Israel, Palestine has no chance. As long as Palestine defends itself with suicide bombings, the world will not credit it as a country. I know two people who can't get work anywhere because they're Palestinian. It's a sad world we live in, isn't it?bogo24dk wrote:
You know very well that before Hamas the fatah was in power. Did Israel bother to make peace talks with them .
Nooooo
If hamas dissapers from the face of the earth tomorrow will Israel be willing to make peace talks that will go any where.
Nooooo
Cause in Israel eyes any peace talks will mean giving up the right to annex west bank to Israel and gaza. So what is the strategy. Wait about 50 years and this problem will be no more cause there woulden't be a land left for the Palestinians.
-konfusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_accords
Wow...you are confused. The Marshall Plan was the recovery of war-torn Europe AFTER WW2, meaning it was the solution, not the cause. The main cause was the Treaty of Versailles, of which Britain and France wanted to punish Germany and wrecked their economy. That in turn, led to the rise of Nazi Germany and WW2.konfusion wrote:
First off, I wonder why EU is part of the list, and separate from Great Britain and France??
To the argument:
The Marshall plan put way too much pressure on Germany's economy, and was thus the basis of WWII.
You're right--Europe didn't do anything. It stopped due to USSR economy.konfusion wrote:
The cold war can be compared to two men comparing dick sizes. Europe was completely left out on that. Europe stayed out of that - and thus kept the situation from escalating.
Correct, the US does get involved due to self interests, as many countries, however to state, "ONLY" is false. Please enlighten us what economy boosts we received from Grenada, Bosnia, Somalia, etc?konfusion wrote:
The USA only intervene when they see massive benefits to their own economy - I don't blame them, but how dare you see them as 'selfless".
They're (Shias vs Sunnis) killing each other for control of the county. I agree they don't want the US there, but they have other motives.konfusion wrote:
People kill civilians in Iraq to try to warn the US to get out of their country. They don't like intervention.
Wow....just wow. If you stated human rights violations, that would've made your argument more plausible rather than extremist US-hating. Did the US work these prisoners to death? Hardly.konfusion wrote:
The USA have their own concentration camps - they just call the people they torture "detainees" to make it sound better.
Again with your misinformation on the WWs. I agree that the US had good odds, but they hardly joined at the end for the winning side. Germany sunk too many of their transport vessels, which prompted US entry.konfusion wrote:
In WWI the USA just came to finish the Germans off - who, by the way, were already fighting 3 other Countries (pretty much by themselves, considering their allies). Four against one - the USA's odds couldn't have been better.
Link to where we used napalm in Iraq? I thought the last time US used chemical weapons was in Vietnam.konfusion wrote:
Coming back on Iraq - the USA used Napalms, and denied ever having used chemical weapons...
Another wow...just wow. Yes, rebuilding Germany's strength and economy for the German people cancels out the extermination of 6,000,000 Jews and killing millions of others through WW2. Yes, Bush's f-up in Iraq cancels out the aid and military support for the other countries. C'mon, use your brain. (BTW, I am well aware of US' many faults, however this statement is lunacy.)konfusion wrote:
If the good canceled out the bad, Hitler would be seen as a much better person, and Mussolini definitely should!
Please don't pass them on again.konfusion wrote:
My views on the matter,
-konfusion
Nice, allow me to retort:KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Skorpy-chan wrote:
They Reign, is what they do.
The Queen also rubber-stamps stuff from parliament, provides authenticity to the money, collects art, bets heavily on winning horses, and acts as a moderator on politics.
The royal family also hold high ranks in the Army, draw attention to issues, rule a fair chunk of the world in a fairly direct manner, and perform upkeep on trading relations with the Commonwealth, as the british empire has been known since we deemed them able to govern themselves.
In response, what exactly does the US Congress do, apart from bicker and suck up tax dollars?
Well, this was for US Republicans, of which you're Canadian and liberal. I agree with some of your points, however you're generalizing on abortion and welfare.TheCanadianTerrorist wrote:
-For gun controlDBBrinson1 wrote:
-Against gun controlCameronPoe wrote:
Post up to ten traits that describe the social status, attitude, outlook, etc. of people who vote for the US Republican Party.
Helpful thoughts:
Income Level
Urban v Rural
Personal Freedom
Views On Law And Order
Age
STRICTLY NO BULLSHIT FLAME ANSWERS.
-Against abortion
-Against gay marriage
-Against giving my hard earned money to people who don't do a damn thing to contribute to society (welfare/social programs)
-For abortion
-For gay marriage
-I have a different proposal for welfare
-For legalization of Marijuana
Gun Control: Pretty obvious. America needs this. We don't need more kids running into school and shooting them up.
Abortion: How fucking ignorant do you have to be to be AGAINST abortion? How would you like it if someone rapes your daughter/wife and they can't have an abortion? It's their fucking body, they can choose what comes out of it and what doesn't. We don't need old white Republican's telling them what to do.
Gay Marriage: Leave the gays alone. The days of a "proper marriage" are over. If you think it's immoral, tell it to the divorce rates.
Welfare: Ok, I kind of agree about the not giving our hard earned money to undeserving people, but some people do try their hardest to live a decent life, and some people haven't come from good families who provide for them. I, personally, have friends who come from bad/run down families, and the person I know relies on welfare, but he tries to support himself with a job. He doesn't have a very good education because he needs to work to feed his family. Instead of letting everyone apply for welfare and everyone being accepted, I think only those who have a dream of changing their life style or who need a chance should be accepted. In fact, if it was up to me, there wouldn't be welfare. Instead, I'd have a small but efficient system, which could easily be employed. This system would consist of lower class job opportunities (fast food, sales clerk, cashiers, etc) and you have to apply to them via government website, local posts, etc. and be accepted. This would be ideal since some people don't have the required skills to go into an interview, or don't have enough experience, but they don't just live off our welfare money either. This way, people off the street can apply at jobs and earn their own money. Small government owned apartments can also be on rent and loaned to these new workers, and after they are on their feet they can pay the government back for these living spaces.
Legalization of Marijuana: I smoke weed, but I guarantee this does NOT affect my view on this subject. Even back when I was AGAINST doing drugs, I was still for legalizing marijuana. I think it should be legal and taxed by roughly 20% of it's cost and what you are getting. EX: 1g of Fire Kush where I live (Ottawa, Canada) is $10 (yes, it is very cheap!) With taxes, it should be $12. With this system, smokers smoke instead of buying it illegally and the government makes more money (A LOT MORE MONEY.) I think that dealing should still be illegal (for those who deal for cheaper) but I think growing marijuana at home should also be legal, with proper licensing. I think dealing should only be legal if it is by a licensed dealer, much like it is now.
EDIT:
And I think there should be a HUGE separation of church and state. Personally, if it was up to me, I'd obliterate religion.
As you can tell, I'm highly liberal.
Most Repubs all state to ban abortion unless the woman is raped or due to medical reasons, thus you made a false assumption. What most Repubs are against are the abortions of convenience. For the record, I believe in a woman's right to choose.
As for welfare, the problem is that there are a lot of people abusing it and the jobs you mentioned ARE available and these people AREN'T working them due to being lazy. Unemployment is always around 4-6% here, and it's usually due to people not wanting to work since there are plenty of job positions (at all levels) available. I don't think the gov should get involved. Welfare should be a temporary solution to help people back on their feet, not permanent, to get rid of the people abusing it. I would only consider permanent welfare for those with (valid) disabilities which prevent holding a job.
I don't know if I agree with that. For starters, every election I've voted in, most people including myself had to vote for the guy they disliked less. It's pathetic that in a country of 300 million that we get two incapable idiots and don't have better choices.The_Mac wrote:
The problem with having a no party system is that the wrong guy might get voted in...not naming names, but someone dumber than any of the major contending parties. It's good to have two concentrated parties, because there's less of a chance of a screw up.Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:
I vote independent. Republicans are usually fuck ups just like the democrats. We need a no party system so were able to just pick the best guy.
The two party system also eliminates good candidates. In the primaries, the GOP candidates pander to the right and the Dems have one from the left. Since their bases are primarily voting for them, the candidates for Pres are often left vs right, and attempt to court the middle. I'd bet most Americans are towards the middle, thus don't get the good choices they want.
Look at the last election--Kerry vs Bush. We had two pathetic losers where most people weren't really for one candidate, it was who they voted AGAINST. I didn't vote for Bush--I voted AGAINST Kerry. It's like this for most people most elections.
Two-party system also has politics associated with them rather than the people and ideas. There were some moderate to liberal GOPs who got voted out of office last election. One was my congressman who was excellent, well-respected, and served my district for decades. While I AGREE with the voter backlash for voting the Dems in majority into the Congress, many excellent reps/senators lost their jobs due to the two-party system. Also, look at the votes in Congress, where people vote party lines rather than if they're for it or not, otherwise they get blackballed by their own party. Another example is where a party will amass enough votes, then have those up for re-election vote the other way to look more moderate to their voters, which is not having an accurate record.
I loathe our two-party system and something needs to be changed.
I'd like to feel sorry for them, but then again, those of us in the US had this same situation almost every election--only bad choices.apollo_fi wrote:
Only bad choices available for the French this Sunday.
Poor France
Leave it to a guy who supports the IRA to lecture on terrorism. There were terrorist activities vs the US when Carter and Clinton were in office--what's your excuse for that?CameronPoe wrote:
This is just a 'straight to the punchline' summary of this Original Post (for all those who have difficulty reading): http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=69804
Bottom Line:
- You can call me an ally of terror if it pleases you but the fact of the matter is I abhorr terrorism. The true allies of terror are the Neo-Conservative movement and those who support it: every action they take seems to breed terrorism. Bali - 7/7 - Madrid Metro - every day in Iraq - every day in Afghanistan. Bush and his cohorts are helping the terrorists to spread their sick ethos across the world by doing everything that the terrorists could possibly want to augment their ability to recruit. By driving a wedge between the West and Islam in the media and charging around the middle east like a loose cannon they have successfully created the environment in which fringe extremist groups have grown in size, influence, ability (Iraq/Afghanistan=training ground) and power.
- What is so sad is that terrorism in USA could have been prevented by implementing Israeli domestic security doctrine. Despite being bombarded by enemies within and without acts of terrorism have become few and far between in Israel. Why? BORDER CONTROLS, INTELLIGENCE, POLICING. Beyond their own recognised borders Israel are animals but they know how to prevent terrorism within their recognised borders (Lebanon conflict stupidity aside).
- The Neo-Cons have been in control of the presidency, congress and senate for the vast majority of the time elapsed since 9/11. The blame for their failed actions lie squarely at their own feet. There are no excuses. Their was no threat of any policy they adopted not making it through either house. In Bush's second term he didn't have to care about public opinion - he could do whatever he wanted in a largely consequence free environment: opinion polls are meaningless when it comes to policy-making for an outgoing president. His actions are his own and the blame attached to their failure is his own also.
- Neo-Conservatives: I largely blame YOU for the surge in terrorism on this planet. Pull your heads out of your fucking arses.
I love how this complete hack always lectures about the US and he doesn't know shit.
Wikipedia has everything--here is their rankings for the worst presidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical … Presidents
I found it searching for the C-Span rankings as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical … Presidents
I found it searching for the C-Span rankings as well.
Obviously you didn't read the article and used this as a means to attack the US. The list ranked almost all the contries from best to worst. USA was tied at #20, with your Australia at #9.Superglueman wrote:
Again, US pointing the finger....America probably made that list and it wouldnt surprise me it if really topped that list(in terms of the "amount" of corruption)..sorry Haiti aint that big...Fancy_Pollux wrote:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html
In Transparency International's 2006 corruption index, Finland ranks as the least corrupt and Haiti ranks as the most corrupt nation. Many Asian countries, unsurprisingly, are ranked as very corrupt. What is shocking, however, is the number of corrupt nations found right here in the Western Hemisphere. In addition to Haiti, we've got countries such as Peru, Argentina, and Bolivia scoring horribly on the corruption index. Corruption is a serious issue that affects politics, public contracting, international conventions, the private sector, aid, access to information, education, and even health.
Western society is generally perceived as more progressive and "civilized" than its Eastern counterparts. It is truly disappointing that, in the 21st century, there are still so many countries in this hemisphere that are not living up to the standard.
What are your general feelings on corruption and how do you think this problem can be remedied?
How do you remedy corruption in America?
It exists...and is obvious to an outsider...maybe is just "the way life goes" to you..
America makes crime so fashionably mainstream that it is largely accepted and tolerated...
Sorry to burst ur bubble..
Also, it's talking about corruption of public officials, not crime. There is a difference.
You're not "bursting" anyone's bubble. Of course there is corruption in the US--that's why we have 7.3 and not a 10. Duh. Are you now going to inform us the world is round, Captain Obvious?
How so? I thought the cause of 9/11 was the fact that our troops were on Saudi lands, which angered Bin Laden/Al-Queda. We were on Saudi lands due to the first Iraqi war.JahManRed wrote:
"In fact, the U.S.-Israeli relationship has grown so very close over the years that it is almost impossible to distinguish whose policy, Israel's or ours, is being pursued in the Middle East, and this is a reality that puts the United States in grave danger." Bill Christison, ex-CIA, 12 October 2004
The above statement explains the mess we are in perfectly and explains the cause of 9/11.
I don't disagree with the quote, just that I feel it's inappropriate to connect it to 9/11.
By your logic, how do you eat? Plants and animals are alive and grown for our consumption.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
Im not a crazy christian or anything. Its a matter of morals. I just dont like the idea of creating life then ending that life, especially when there are alternative methods able to be used.B.Schuss wrote:
unbelievable. I wonder who is behind that decision ( apart from GWB, of course ). Bible-belt fanatics...
note to self: never again elect a reborn christian into office.
Iraq was the only preemptive war. Going into Afghanistan was due to them refusing to give up Al Queda, who was responsible for 911. Yes, there was proof and they admitted it.oug wrote:
The United States Army invaded their land for no apparent reason - since no WMDs were found.Pinto wrote:
They're animals for hiding amongst women and children.
They're animals for blowing up their fellow citizens, many women and children, who did not "invade" their land.
They're animals for beheading their captives rather then quickly killing them.
Preemptive warS? Again, please tell me the other preemptive wars the US has gotten involved.
This has no comparison to Veitnam. Veitnam was not lost militarily but rather politically and through the media. Furthermore, the US wasn't "invaders" as they were there to help the South Veitnamese.
Hiding amongst civilians? They have no alternative other that guerrilla warfare since your numbers and arsenal are far greater. You are killing these people remember, so it is a matter of survival. No code of honor applies for the 1 man when being attacked by 100 men.
Blowing fellow citizens? I wonder where you heard that from. So stupid I won't bother to answer.
Yes, they are animals for beheading captives. But even a dog is not evil until you teach it to be. They were not born animals remember, it is you who made them by invading their country.
The US Government soon after 911 declared that they would from then on embark on preemptive strikes against any country they believe harbors "terrorists".
So. The war in Afghanistan was a preemptive war, since there are no evidence whatsoever linking the country of Afghanistan with the strike on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
Same goes for the war in Iraq. Prior to the war, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair both stated that they were convinced of the existence of WMDs and of a link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist strikes against the USA. Later, after the army had already moved in they conveniently changed their mind just like that.
Result: Hundreds of American soldiers dead.
Thousands of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers and civilians dead.
As for Vietnam, there is a characterisation for it in Greek. Its called "πύρρειος νίκη". This is a victory with so many losses, one wishes they had never won.
Vietnam was not lost politically, its just that the US was losing so many people and money that even if they eventually won the war, they would gain nothing out of it. Thus, political pressure for ending the war was just a way out of a lose - lose situation.
How is blowing up fellow citizens an idiotic comment? There are articles on it daily when some terrorist blows up a Shiite Mosque or some public area killing scores of Iraqis. I love how you refuted a statement with nothing.
Why are you lecturing me on the Iraq war? I wasn't defending it--merely pointing out there are differences between the insurgents and the US forces and was correcting your obvious misstatements. Please leave your factually and logically incorrect and immature anti-US bias off of this board. At least people like CameronPoe and Bubbalo have some logic and facts to back their statements.
I'm surprised no one mentioned all of the Moongamers rules. Don't they have twenty on their Karkand map?
Bushviper is listed as my worst enemy. Some clanmates and I jumped onto an EA server which had Wake going. He and BabySpinach were in J10s, owning the entire map. Even when I tried swimming or sneaking around, he'd somehow find me and gun me down. He (they) basically won those games for their team by themselves.
One game we actually made landfall, and I was lucky to kill him twice, though. (However that was just a small fraction of downing me.)
Yes, he was probably the best I've faced.
One game we actually made landfall, and I was lucky to kill him twice, though. (However that was just a small fraction of downing me.)
Yes, he was probably the best I've faced.
They're animals for hiding amongst women and children.oug wrote:
So they are animals cause they killed a wounded soldier who invaded their land.=JoD=Corithus wrote:
The fact that we have a set of principles and guidelines we follow, even in the heat of armed conflict is what sets us apart from these animals.
On the other hand your government just decide some country is "bad" and you embark on fucking PREEMPTIVE wars.
Plus having seen this movie again in Vietnam, you people only figure you're doing something wrong when your kids come back in a plastic bag. Then you start complaining. Who is the animal now.
They're animals for blowing up their fellow citizens, many women and children, who did not "invade" their land.
They're animals for beheading their captives rather then quickly killing them.
Preemptive warS? Again, please tell me the other preemptive wars the US has gotten involved.
This has no comparison to Veitnam. Veitnam was not lost militarily but rather politically and through the media. Furthermore, the US wasn't "invaders" as they were there to help the South Veitnamese.
I'm just curious since I see some people on here a lot and was wondering if any of you actually take time out and play BF2, hence the reason these forums are here.
What truth? What part did the US involve when countries with known human rights violations are sitting on the human rights council? How was the US at fault when the UN ignored Rwanda? Please tell me how the US was involved with the food for oil scandal? Shall I go on?herrr_smity wrote:
uuu did i hurt your feelings by telling the truthtopthrill05 wrote:
You are really just a biased person, with an ignorance level of Paris Hilton.herrr_smity wrote:
the UN was a US idea so no wonder its corrupt
Yeah, that's why N Korea, Iran, Somalia, China, France, Venezuela, and Cuba are dead.CutK0rners wrote:
thats becuase the US pretty much runs the world... and right now, our mentality is "fuck with us and you're dead"TeamZephyr wrote:
The UN is a ridiculously corrupt organization.
They declare North Korea to be an aggressive nation, fair enough they are aggressive. But I can't believe that the 2 most aggressive countries of the 20th Century (Israel and the USA) have not been declared aggressive. Just my two cents.....
pretty sad IMO
This ignorant US bashing on these forums are getting old.
Wow...where do I begin?oug wrote:
It is generally difficult to say what would have happened in WWII, because the timing of the Germans' fall was critical in many ways. For example, at that point the missile technology was being perfected by the Nazis. If they had a little more time, it is said they could have changed the face of warfare as it was known back then. But that is besides the point.USAFDude_1988 wrote:
Well Hitler never managed to kick the UK's ass. A country that was only 25 miles away from German-occupied France... so how could Hitler even manage to pull off an assault across thousands of miles of Atlantic water?!oug wrote:
Its funny how the americans think they made Europe a favor in WWII. Know that it was your involvement in this war that made you the dominant power in the world today, and that if you had stayed out of it Hitler would've kicked your asses as well. So enough with all that bitching about how you saved us and how good people you are and how grateful we should be.
Its time to realize that you are today what Germany was back in '39. So do your thing, and the rest of us will do our thing. At least the Germans weren't looking for sympathy while trying to conquer the world.
Germany in 1939:
- Annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia.
- Invaded Poland.
So if the United States is what you say it is.. we should have annexed Mexico by now and around the first of September we're gonna start an invasion of Canada?
Let's also not forget the fact that us Americans take our freedoms seriously. I'm insulted that you relate our government to the horrific nightmare that was the Third Reich. President Bush might not accept homosexuality.. but he respects human life enough that he's not systematically killing them off at prison camps across the country. If this government was anything like the Third Reich, people like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan would've lost their lives years ago.
Why don't you go down to the suburb of Glyfada in Athens and take a look? It's obvious your feelings of anti-Americanism isn't shared by your fellow citizens. Every time I'm down there I see that T.G.I. Friday's and Applebee's - both American restaurants - are completely packed. I suggest that you eat at one of them.. they both have good food!
Do not forget that you have helped dictatorships into power all over south America, and thus the US controls the whole area with the exception of Castro's Cuba and Chavez's Venezuela. Generally you must realize that times have changed and that the USA will not invade Mexico and Canada the way Germany invaded Poland. So long as Mexico and Canada do as they are told by the US, that's the way its going to be. Invasion is not the only means of control now days. There's far more "civilized" and subtle ways which it seems, you choose not to see.
As far as concentration camps go, the most famous is Guantanamo, but there are others in small tropical islands as well.
You spoke of freedom... Well I'm not sure how free you people are lately. In my humble opinion the average American was never "more" free than the average European for example, although you Americans tend to think so (on what grounds I don't know). Lately though, fear has guided you people into voting several legislations whose goal is none other than to limit your freedom, based on the excuse that there are terrorists out there who mean to kill you.
And what is it with you people talking about freedom and somehow linking it to fags? Homosexuals and their rights have absolutely NOTHING to do with this conversation. I couldn't care less about them, cause after all they are just people with an illness so that makes them no different in the eyes of the law or the state.
And as far as Michael Moore goes, I gathered from his films that he is a democrat and that his efforts aim at bringing his favorite party into power once again. In short, there are other voices who are being muted by your government because they speak of far worse truths than Moore (take Chomsky for example). And again, times have changed. Killing Moore or Cindy Sheehan (I don't know her) would only prove them right and make them martyrs of their cause. There are better ways of silencing people, like spreading rumors and destroying their credibility, making them look like the nutcase of the village.
Finally, know that I am not attacking the American people or the culture. After all I like burgers and I listen to 99% American and British music. You could say I am American bred. Americans are great people. I have been to the USA twice and I can say that they are the less malevolent people I have ever seen. But this innate desire to do good is being used by your government against the American people. Proof? Two preemptive wars and still you can't see the connection.
BTW applebee's and TGI Fridays are great but a bit expensive here in Greece. If you come over I can suggest a few burger joints that kick ass
1) Which dictatorships did the US install in South America? The US has installed governments in the world before and recently, however the preference are democracies and they haven't been in South America.
2) Canada, Mexico, etc, do not always do the US bidding. If Mexico was controlled by the US, we wouldn't have immigration issues which they disagree on.
3) Guantanamo Bay is hardly a concentration camp. Are there abuses and probably tough (perhaps even slight torture) their in interrogations? Perhaps. Are there systematic killing, work-to-death conditions, and torture compared to the Nazis? Hardly.
4) Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan ARE nutcases. If you ever did any unbiased research on them, you'd know they're loons. Their credibility should be shot.
5) Two pre-emptive wars? What's the other one besides Iraq? All others were in defense of the US, its allies, or by the UN.
Oug, I've read most of your posts, and I can clearly state you have no clue about the US, world affairs, history, or life in general.
Other than Iraq (for the second time), when was the USA an aggressor? Every other war was in self defense or assisting the defense of another country. I love how kids or lefties like to confuse emotion with facts.TeamZephyr wrote:
The UN is a ridiculously corrupt organization.
They declare North Korea to be an aggressive nation, fair enough they are aggressive. But I can't believe that the 2 most aggressive countries of the 20th Century (Israel and the USA) have not been declared aggressive. Just my two cents.....
I agree that it looks better with it in there and don't have a problem either way, however the 9/11 vs WW2 comparisons are not legit. The main reason if they took it out due to 9/11, it's because there are still many people alive today affected by 9/11 and might not be over it. Remember, there a lot of people at video game ages 12-50, who lost people in that recent tragedy. Most of the WW2 generation alive today are probably too old and don't play video games, thus any outrage would be minimal to non-existant.
I'm not defending the action of removal, just stating the probable reason.
I'm not defending the action of removal, just stating the probable reason.
Why bring up the slam on American Football? You're going to hijack this thread from a football/soccer appreciation thread into another which-sport-is-better one. It's amazing how people on this site can never stay positive.ExecutionerStyle wrote:
Because he's a tard =p
I love the World Cup. Football is so much more interesting than American Football.
American Football: 5 seconds of running, a minute of huddling and getting ready to run for another 5 seconds. Somehow a 60 minute game takes 4 hours.
Football: 90 minutes (up to a bit over 2 hours at most) of intense action the whole time.
the best part aboutt he world cup is how it's all these different cultures playing it out for the top title. It's wonderful to see all the fans cheering on, the different faces, the clashes between cultures (England and France is a pretty intense match anytime). It's like war but settled through sport instead of bullets.
What gets me is that why do you have to type "bad" words out? That is just more immature than the admins. Kids trying to sound grown up or be cool taunt others and type swear in BF2. Adults are too busy playing the game and don't care.N)!(NDarkDragon wrote:
NEVER go on the =WTF= warlord server. They kick you for saying n00b, noob, moron, stupid, retard, poop, owned, pwned, and ANYTHING that is harmless. Fuckin 3 year old fuckers. I mean WTF that HAS to be against the ROE to kick for so DUMBASSED reasons as that!
Furthermore--did they have a policy listed?
The only time I'd call a server, "gay", is if everyone was teabagging each other.
Next time learn proper grammar, then we might know what's going on and care.xGBlitzkrieg wrote:
AYT, me and a buddy where playing warlord on 70.86.74.10, and this time like always, we made the round even , against their 8 to 10 clan members on one team. The Greatest part is we where then kbanned for stat padding in which they knew damn well we werent, my buddy was k/d 45/17 and i was 25/25 at this time i was killed and pissed at the little pkm camper. So i jump on the atv adn drove as fast i could to were he was on the ground under the carport at 3rd floor, i jumped off and got his ass back a shotgun shot to the face and mr soc.xrsi fack i dont care what his little cheating ass is really named. BUt any way THE SOC clan is a bunch of cheaters, they dont hack or anything as far as i know, but they will ban poeople from their server cause they are kicking their ass, and thats cheap, they wanted the gold and werent gonna get it my buddy was.
SOC Sack O' Crap Clan, Yall have shown us that you a bunch of stat padding, abusive admins, that get really sad and i want to cry, when your best efforts to make the game uneven and win time after tiem cuz, you tought wrong.
I wont look at this post again, so talk all lthe shit you want. THe reason is that this is all the time im going to waste on any poons like these!
"Plundering resources?" Please enlighten us on which resources the US has acquired? If you're going to say oil, I would think it would be back to $1/gallon and not $3/gallon.RicardoBlanco wrote:
See most countries do care what the rest of the world thinks of them. The fact that yours goes around doing whatever it likes to satisfy it's economic interests and doesn't give a flying fuck what other people think is why you get bombed...it's a really simple concept. Incidentally, what are you running for?comet241 wrote:
do you think we really care what the rest of the world thinks about us? we're not out to win a popularity contest, this isn't 8th grade class president we are running for.... WE DON'T CARE!!!!!
nobody else seems to have a foreign policy other than let the UN take care of it.... too bad it doesn't work and is a drain of money and time. Somebody has to police the world to keep a repeat of WWI and part II.
Everyone else has a foreign policy too, only difference being ours doesn't include invading countries and plundering resources. You'll find we get on rather well with other countries, even the ones we hate like the French. If you want something you ask for it, not act like the bully and take whatever you feel like.
Yes, it's been stated and proved too many times already.Toonces7 wrote:
Can someone verify this? I've accidently shot a teammate and I thought I didn't have -teampoints since he forgave me. Is the "punish" option really just a counter to boot you from the server if you get 2 or 3? I always thought you didn't get the -4 points unless they punished. I've been on some servers that autopunish and don't even give you the option to forgive.
You will always receive -4 points for a TK, regardless whether the person punishes or not.
Punish option is only to remove people who rack up TKs from the game if they receive a certain amount of punishes. I believe the default is four.
The ones I remember that ticked me off:
Being a squad leader, shooting at an enemy with PKM, squad mate jumped in front, got downed in two hits with PKM, then punished. Of course I told him he was an idiot over VOIP then booted him from the squad.
Once I was in a blackhawk on Wake, seated in the back. As we were getting shot up, I bailed. Somehow I got four TKs, and two of the idiots punished. You'd think they'd know that we were getting shot up and it wasn't from a friendly.
In a buggy, I stopped to give someone a ride, however they still got enthusiastically in front of me as I slowed down, got TKed, then still punished. Dude should've realized I was slowing down for him and he got in front of me.
Being a squad leader, shooting at an enemy with PKM, squad mate jumped in front, got downed in two hits with PKM, then punished. Of course I told him he was an idiot over VOIP then booted him from the squad.
Once I was in a blackhawk on Wake, seated in the back. As we were getting shot up, I bailed. Somehow I got four TKs, and two of the idiots punished. You'd think they'd know that we were getting shot up and it wasn't from a friendly.
In a buggy, I stopped to give someone a ride, however they still got enthusiastically in front of me as I slowed down, got TKed, then still punished. Dude should've realized I was slowing down for him and he got in front of me.
As stated before, most people don't know about the ROE. I have a lot of friends who like to go to K&P servers, and most don't know it's against the ROE or that there even is a ROE. They search the available servers, see that type of game, and go there for something different, believing it's legit since it's in the ranked server listing. Blame the server, not the people.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Ok so I haven't been playing BF2 for about 3 months, and I come back, download 1.3, and find about 100 or so PISTOL KNIFE servers....last time i checked this was a direct violation of EA's ROE...and I went on one of these servers to take some screenshots of padding bastards and I used reg weapons and they CALL ME A cheater, you gotta be kidding me, is Pistol knife servers OK with EA now or am I completely oblivous to the fact that these a-holes running pistol knife servers can call me a cheater when I'm following the damn rules set by EA. Otherwise SET ME STRAIGHT and tell me when these p&k servers went from STAT PADDING to OK. Thanks.
Anyway, what's worse--guy needs a knife/pistol badge, goes in one of those servers, plays one game, gets it, then can play BF2 normally on legit servers, or someone going to a legit server, continuously getting killed, wasting his team's tickets, and possibly getting teammates killed by not killing the enemy quick enough? I'd rather have these people waste a game to go in there and play normally when I'm in a legit server. While I like badges and medals, there's nothing more frustrating when you're trying to play a game and your team is too busy focusing on awards and not actually playing.
I don't understand why Moongamer posts continue to appear. Along with with Kentucky Fried Server and Christian Gamers Online, it probably has the most negative press against it. Why go to servers with a lot of complaints? Their servers have WAY too many rules which are not consistent and ambigious, as this thread has proven. Rules should be few and verifiable. Additionally, some of the admins appear to be power hungry or immature, again proven by Firestorm's replies in this thread.
I hate to say, "Find another server," however in this case it's rather obvious.
I hate to say, "Find another server," however in this case it's rather obvious.
If Cuba is that strong, why are the people fleeing to the US?Spark wrote:
You sure?Mackaronen wrote:
Fascism!! Not that i like that choise at all but the human being is too egoistic for communism to work. Every try yet to bring communism in to this world has ended in fiasco.
As far as I know, Vietnam is still going strong, as is Cuba.
Yugoslavia's most peaceful period was under a socialist leader (Tito).
That wouldn't surprise me, too. He'll be "caught" in summer of 2007.GATOR591957 wrote:
I agree. He is most likely cornered where they can get him at any time, or on ice somewhere where he can miraculously be killed just before the elections.Spumantiii wrote:
I heard this as well, probably because his location is known, or he was killed.GATOR591957 wrote:
On a side note I just read today that the unit assigned to find Bin Laden who is the real criminal in 9/11 was disbanded some months back. Why? There's just so many things in this administration that don't add up.
Wouldn't it be convenient if he were still alive and producing tapes? Did you notice how Bin Laden wasn't actually in the last tape?
Anyway, Darth: if Clinton got impeached for lying on the record, what should be done with Bush?
Again, it's not about lying on the record. Clinton got impeached for the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice from the sexual harrassment investigation. Also, Clinton was acquitted by the Senate.Spumantiii wrote:
I heard this as well, probably because his location is known, or he was killed.GATOR591957 wrote:
On a side note I just read today that the unit assigned to find Bin Laden who is the real criminal in 9/11 was disbanded some months back. Why? There's just so many things in this administration that don't add up.
Wouldn't it be convenient if he were still alive and producing tapes? Did you notice how Bin Laden wasn't actually in the last tape?
Anyway, Darth: if Clinton got impeached for lying on the record, what should be done with Bush?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_impeachment
For the record, I believe Bush's "lies" are far worse than Clinton's "lies" with respect to outcome to the US and world, however from a legal standpoint, they're not.
Unfortunately with the two-party system, most people I know did not vote FOR Bush or FOR Kerry, but rather voted AGAINST Bush or AGAINST Kerry. It's really sad that our elections are typically for the lesser of two evils.K8Kommunist wrote:
Is there anyone that genuinely likes Kerry?
I always figured it was an "anybody but Bush" thing during the election, and that after he'd lost, he'd disappear off the political map permanently.
"Extended warranty! How can I lose!"Xietsu wrote:
What's the criterion for total fucking moron status?
(From the Simpsons episode when Moe reverted Homer back to stupid.)
Exactly. I wonder how many people join servers if a top player is in them. Do they suck up to them or try to stalk them for bragging rights?Toilet Sex wrote:
I'd hate to be near the top 10. So many little idiots posting topics about you for no reason. I mean really, who cares? You say he has no life for playing so much (so I hear) yet you can't have much of a life if you care about a game so much.
How is he more weird than you? Why is his opinion as a rock and roll legend not possible, yet other celebrities can do it? What qualifications do you have to discuss politics over him? What charities and groups have you supported?rawls wrote:
Lets quote a rock n roll legend, former junkie, and weirdo, and say that this is what Americans should believe if you are to be a true patriot. No, I think not. You are all a bunch of rednecks with no idea about anything. Ooh, I'm not Caucasian, big fucking deal, I am more American then all you who think because your a white male you are true blue.
PS. Apologies to lowing for the redneck comment. No excuse just apology.
What's your source on the "former junkie"? I found several to state otherwise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nugent
http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/nugent_ted/bio.jhtml
"..lifelong anti-drugs and -drink stance throughout his career."
I think you should actually know what you're talking about before you criticize.
I agree with most of your points, however this one isn't necessarily true. There are some servers which have mines friendly fire on. Some of these servers also don't advertise it, too. I have seen people get kicked/banned since they mine an area, teammates thinking it has been fixed from 1.2 drive over, get blown up, then all punish.blacksheepcannibal wrote:
I grow tired of the same old complaints.
***3.5*** I got punished because some tard walked in front of my claymore/ran over my mine [edit: again, 1.2 fixed this]
***edits***
I'll give you another +1.
Don't forget to update your rules about their posted server rules apply to everyone except them and their buddies. Another one is don't dare take away a medal from them, too.
Don't forget to update your rules about their posted server rules apply to everyone except them and their buddies. Another one is don't dare take away a medal from them, too.
Make sure you create a vigilante account, so if you're making this dude's life hell, that he doesn't return the favor again. Also, if you tick off an admin, they can just ban your vigilante account.King_County_Downy wrote:
Add him to your leaderboard and make his life hell.