Any justification for such a statement?
Or is that a baseless, fringe statement worthy of black-helicopter conspiracy theorists who believe the US government is out to destroy them?
The thing is, the Democrats are set on dumping money on the problem, while the Republicans seem set on advocating responsibility with minimal outreach. So the Dems perpetuate an existing problem w/ social assistance, while the Republicans seem to not take into account the need to inform/educate these people before they're ready to take responsibility.
Would Al Qaeda exist if American foreign policy was different? God yes. Remember that Osama Bin Laden is not a man striving for political reforms, nor is he a man seeking a change in the relationship between America and the Arab League. Bin Laden and his ilk believe in a holy war against the West and the recreation of the Middle East's golden age, when a Pan-Arabian empire was a global power.
Likewise, take a look at history. The supposed "Palestinian Liberation" organizations were funded BEFORE the 6-Day War and Israel's occupation of the disputed territories. Their stated goal has always been the destruction of Israel and its replacement with an Islamic state, a goal which they have consistently attempted to ingrain into the hearts and minds of tragically manipulated and abused youth.
Take into account the now little-publicized fact that upon the creation of Israel, the British Mandate of Palestine was to be divided into not one, but TWO states (Israel and Palestine, democratic states representing both religions) coexisting peacefully... it was the Arab nations, falsely claiming to represent the interests of the Palestinians, who opted against this plan and chose to instead launch a war against the nascent state of Israel, which resulted in the boundaries that Israel had up to the 1967 war.
That's just an example, but it proves that not all extremists have legitimate grievances, and most are willing to create said grievances to justify their otherwise inexplicable actions.
I'm not denying that there the out-of-control population density in the slums is a contributing factor to crime and poverty in America.
What I'm saying is that the social assistance America is now providing to these people is not so much inadequate (debateable), but simply inefficient, because it does not take into account the values of the people we give the money to.
Here's what I meant by welfare reform:
1) Educational outreach in schools (for children), and workshops outside of schools for parents, consisting of:
- Comprehensively teaching financial management skills
- Stressing the importance of planned parentage, with free protection available upon request
- Reinforcing the importance of post-secondary education, steady income and literacy
2) Mainstreamed, standardized vouchers
- Coupled with outreach, this would give inner-city children additional educational choice
- Post-secondary vouchers would allow students that otherwise would not be able to attend certain institutions to do so, furthering their education
The key to breaking the cycle of poverty is education, awareness of financial and social situations, motivation, and proper work ethic. The current social assistance programs existing in the United States do precisely the opposite of this, creating a culture of dependency amongst the poor and preventing them from rising above their dire financial situations. This in turn leads to a rise in crime.
The United States could, with the money currently being devoted to handouts and the like, easily implement reforms like those I suggested, and I'd be willing to place bets that such a sytem would do far more to help those in need than the current welfare programs.
I come from a mixed family. My mother is ethnic Chinese from Malaysia, and was quite controlling for the duration of my childhood. I don't dispute that Asian children often yearn for more freedom, not do I dispute that Net Cafes and their ilk are an outlet for this yearning.
What I do take exception to is the chorus of 'tyranny!' and 'oppression!' from people who have neither been exposed to Asian society, nor known what goes on in the Net Cafes there. These rules, while they may seem draconian to some, are actually meant to protect children from what in Asia is an unregulated, often seedy business that draws the worst sorts of people for impressionable kids to consort with (gamblers, petty criminals, recruiters for organized crime, etc.)
I've taken my cousin to Net Cafes, and we've been allowed to light cigarettes, drink beer, and take narcotics. Not that we did any drugs, but the fact that such things were allowed, and in some cases PROVIDED by the establishments makes Net Cafes in Asian countries an entirely different animal than here. If these sorts of Cafes existed in Canada or the United States, parents' groups would be similarly outraged and there would be a massive cry for regulation or outright banning of the cafes.
It's not children's freedoms that are being shut down. The government of Thailand is trying to curtail a possible trouble-spot by imposing these curfews. I personally would opt for licensing of cafes, with regular inspections to ensure that a child-friendly environment was promoted (or that no individuals under the legal drinking/smoking age were allowed in cafes in which either are provided).
That's the passive way to do things.
While the afformentioned inner-city thugs or extremist groups may or may not have legitimate grievances, the United States (or any other country) simply cannot afford to appease these groups, as this would set a precedent for others who would then also use violence against civilians as a means of achieving their sociopolitical goals.
Inner-city drug dealers and hoodlums, regardless of color (because (if not joking) association of inner-city crime with blacks reeks of racism), ARE the problem. They may result from conditions of poverty, but they are in and of themselves a problem w/ society. The USA, and other countries, can largely stop this problem from recurring by adopting an educative welfare program to put inner-city children through school, give them employment opportunities, and mainstreaming vouchers, including post-secondary education in the program. Our current system of simply handing out money, or utterly neglecting the inner-city poor, is doing nothing but failing them. Nothing we do with this system, no amount of money, will solve the underlying problems (lack of education, mismanagement of funds, lack of hope/direction leading to frustration which in turn leads to crime).
As for extremist groups, the answer is not to fix our foreign policy. Sorry. Groups like Al Qaeda are comprised of bigoted, maniacal individuals who pervert good religions (in this case, Islam) to suit their goals. The Palestinian terrorist groups (such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Fatah (yes, Fatah), and the Palestine Liberation Organization), who claim to represent the interests of the Palestinian people, are also extremists who must not be dealt with or had concessions made to. Groups that brainwash the helpless children of a foundling nation (Palestine) to perpatrate attacks on civilians do not do so to further Palestinian interests; they do so out of rabid hate. I personally think that American foreign policy towards the Palestinians should be as such: offer to extend a helping hand to Abu Mazen and the legitimate Palestinian government, either through a multinational task force such as a UN peacekeeping contingent, or some sort of coalition, by deploying troops to help remove the radical groups that forment anti-Israeli sentiment, perpatrate attacks that endanger the road map, and undermine the authority of the Palestinian government.
All economies in existance today are command economies
I disagree. Perhaps I should have clarified, but it is the kind of government intervention necessary in this case that constitutes action befitting of a command economy. However, the United States is a market economy, wherein the role of the government is simply to define and enforce the most elementary rules of the market. Breaking up Microsoft constitutes active intervention from the state in the interest of protecting citizens from what it sees as exploitation by elements of the market (in this case MS), an action in direct opposition to the economic policies of capitalism.
Don't be so hard on yourself. If you can look back and see what you've done wrong, you're definitely better than 95% of parents.
You only truly fail your children when you can't see when you're doing something wrong, even after the fact, or choose to ignore the fact that what you're doing is wrong.
From your post, I'd say you're probably doing much better than you think.
Good ideas abound.
I can't stand parents who complain about the internet, television, rap music, or video games.
It takes a lot of chutzpah to buy a CD with a "PARENTAL ADVISORY: EXPLICIT LYRICS" sticker on it, and then complain about the music kids listen to.
Worse still are the parents who bitch about GTA: Vice City and its ilk. They buy these games for their children, games clearly rated 'M', and then complain about children being exposed to violent videogames.
It's ridiculous.
I don't dispute what you're saying. However, when one looks at incidents like the Columbine shooting, it is foolish to completely disregard the possibility of negligence on the parts of the parents.
You're absolutely correct: no person should be responsible for the actions of another. However, when we attempt to look at what brings about these actions, we often disregard the cold had truth, the fact that there are steps parents could have taken to prevent their children from taking these courses of action. Instead, North Americans tend to point the finger everywhere else but the child, or the parents.
A recent study found that not all jocks are mental midgets. Recent findings also indicate that cheerleaders may not actually tend towards sexual promiscuity!
But seriously... it took them this long to figure that out?
Popular thought with regard to children in America/Canada seems to increasingly tend towards one of two categories:
1) Passive Parenting
- Exposure of children to all media, regardless of content, with no explanations
- Laissez-faire attitudes, encouraging "expression" and "individuality"
2) See-No-Evil Parenting
- Shield children from "the evils of the world"
- Strict enforcement of one's personal values on child
I believe both of these methods of parenting can lead to complications with children as they develop, personally. As I see more and more kids either completely sheltered and oblivious, or being TOO aware for their ages, I can't help but thinking that parenting has something to do with it.
I think you're absolutely correct about the legal system and the schools moving to correct the problems created by bad parenting, and I also agree that the results have been mixed at best. However, I think that a lot of the problem lies in the fact that we are simply too willing to blame the antics of our children on anyone BUT ourselves. It's always something in the media, be it TV, Video Games, or Music Videos... and I think this has to stop.
What we need is accountability on the parts of all parents for the actions of their children, and a fundamental change from the #1/#2 parenting styles.
Malaysia has, like Thailand, what it perceives to be an increasing amount of youth addicted to gaming. What one has to understand is that the methods of parenting in many Asian countries are quite different from those employed here, as is the perceived role of law enforcement. Because parents feel that they cannot simply order their children to stay away from the arcades, they put their trust in the laws of the land to prevent their children from what is seen as an unproductive, unhealthy activity.
I've been to Malaysian Net Cafes. Part of the reason parents are so worried about these places is because they often are havens for youth gang members, and still more often serve as venues for recruiting impressionable youths into the gangs.
Gaming addiction, while not so prevalent here, is quite common in the Far East. Kuala Lumpur has Net Cafes on every block, and enough children skip school or sneak out at night to play there that parents groups have demanded that something be done.
Many asian societies value strict adherence to the wishes of one's parents. These curfews have probably been implemented because parents feel extremely concerned that their children are defying family values (by disobeying their parents and playing games at all hours).
I'd actually say that what you're saying is in support of Free Market Venture Capitalism. To break up Microsoft, however beneficial it could be to the economy as a result of more competition, constitutes state intervention in the market and is befitting of a Command Economy, the diametric opposite to the laisser-faire, individualist ideology of capitalism.
The "abuse of influence" (the curtailing of competition through aggressive marketting tactics, hostile takeovers, and intentional incompatibilities with software made by other companies, and other tactics employed/being employed by Microsoft) is the only realistic way to maintain a monopoly; monopolies have almost never historically resulted from a product being simply superior to others in its class...
So really, while having a monopoly is "not illegal", if the means of attaining a monopoly are illegal, the end is also effectively illegal as well, no?
But, as you remember, the premise of T3 was that humans would inevitably create sentient, artificial life (the afformentioned Rise of the Machines). Skynet, the name given to the sentient AI system controlling the machines, took the form of a software-based US Defense program in T3. this program was called SkyNet for continuity's sake, if you ask me.
I agree with you about the time causality loop... It was the return of the Terminator to the past that triggered the alternate timelines, as the possible future interactions of Connor and others were altered, resulting in different incarnations of SkyNet. However, regardless of whether the Terminators went into the past, the creation of sentient AI was inevitable, as was Judgement Day, the opening salvo of the war between humans and machines.
And as for Terminator being molded after an old man, it does serve one purpose: T-101 was a state of the art killing machine in T1. By T3, it is obselete, having been eclipsed by both T1000 and T-X.
Someone should devise a system that could apply makeup to womens faces while they were driving. Imagine the drop in road rage and accidents... just imagine. :p
Re:AntiTrust is the worst movie since the Matrix.
on
What is Open Source?
·
· Score: 1
Ryan Phillipe is cooler than you.
When Ryan Phillipe is cooler than you, you know you have a problem.
(ps: Your quotations about what I've said about those sources are not true. If you want to debate - try sticking to the truth. Things become much more fun then!)
Perhaps you should try heeding your own advice, Mr. Americanstateterrorism.com. If I didn't know better, I'd say that you were one of the best trolls I've seen on this site.
What you're saying isn't so much correct as it is baseless drivel.
command economis = letting the printing press run, lowering the value of the dollar
AHAHAHA! The United States runs on a system of free-market capitalism. Command economies, often employed by socialist or communist states, are the antithesis to the American model of capitalism that most asshats deplore.
charismatic leaders = Bush is on _everyone_'s lips
Dubya is put up to more scrutiny than most presidents, by figures on both the Left and the Right of the political spectrum. Dubya does not inspire fervent bloodlust and hatred towards any particular group. This comparison is at best misguided, and at worst an indication of your willingness to distort the truth to fit to your vision of America as a Nazi state.
secret polic = cia, fbi, you name it
You're a funny man, Troed. A funny, funny man. Perhaps you should be on the lookout: I'm sure the American Gestapo will be at your door any moment now with their black helicopters to take you away. The CIA and FBI are not malevolent organizations. I'd like to see where you got this idea from.
persecution of ethnic minorities = muslims in the USA are forced to register for interrogation
For Christ's sake, that's assinine. Where's your proof? I demand that you back up this ridiculous statement with conclusive proof of the United States employing a policy of mandatory interrogations of all peoples of the Muslim faith. Furthermore, I demand that you inform yourself at least to the point where you can discern between religions and ethnicities. Being a Muslim is NOT an ethnicity.
calls for self-sacrifice = americans die in Iraq at this very moment, in an unnecessary war (no ties to Al-Qaeda, no WMDs) where the US government lied to the world at large.
I suppose you believe that the Americans should have stayed out of WW2. After all, what did Hitler ever do to them? Europe was none of their concern, right? Those poor, poor GIs, called to sacrifice themselves for an evil, imperialist administration.
Once again, your pomposity and ignorance belies you. You know absolutely nothing about America. You've linked to virulently anti-American and Anti-Semetic sites before, citing them as "credible, unbiased sources" and "another perspective to consider".
You've chosen to respond to the testimony of LittleLebowskiUrbanA's coworkers against your claims that Muslims are subject to mandatory interrogations with labels of ignorance and obliviousness. I'm sure you'd love to believe so, but the testimony of LLUA's coworkers > contrived black-helicopter stories.
Incidentally, are you aware of the significant drop in support for your PM in response to his increasingly anti-US stance? (Linked to the google cache of Clarinet for viewing convenience, as the story's now expired from their archives, meaning that you'd have to be a subscriber to view it)
That he did. He additionally opposed Allied intervention against Hitler.
That article, which summarizes Gandhi's beliefs with regard to the Jews, is comprised of quotations from articles Gandhi wrote in 1938, all of which can be readily found through search engines.
According to the ICC doctrine and information available on sites such as HRW, the ICC can only investigate crimes after its inception the 2nd of July, 2002.
Washington cannot be concerned about former ministers being charged, because this simply cannot happen.
Washington fears the courts will be used to levy charges against its officials for political reasons, and that the courts compromise its sovereignty. While I do support the idea of an international court, there are valid reasons for not ratifying it at this time. There are many, many issues that need to be ironed out.
Additionally, the Clinton administration signed conditionally. The conditions they requested were not met.
Additionally, would you not say that it is not impossible that the pro-Arab nations of Europe or Asia could attempt to charge American officials for purely political reasons? Charges of genocide or crimes against humanity are damaging, regardless of whether they stick.
1) Israel was to exchange territories for concessions made by the PA as per the 1993 Oslo accords. Despite the fact that the PA controls 97% of the territory it was to be accorded under Oslo, it has made NONE of the concessions it agreed to.
And yet, you refer to the occupation of a sovereign nation by an aggressor?
2) If the United States gave groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the PA arms of the same caliber as are given to the state of Israel, I am sure that they would love to use them to deliberately target more civilians. However, to say that the general Palestinian public would take up arms in an attempt to slaughter civilians for political gain truly is pigeonholing them as terrorists.
3) The position of the Apartheid government of South Africa has nothing to do with what we are discussing here, so I can but assume that by raising this point you are attempting to say that you do not considered Yasser Arafat, a man who is responsible for the slaughter of thousands of civilians as a result of direct military action by the groups at his command against them, as a terrorist.
So, under the law of the time, the United States administration of the time was absolved of charges of terrorism. Not that that has anything to do with the Bush administration, but all the same.
About the ICC, countries that signed to it negotiated changes to it to grant them immunities. When the Clinton administration signed to it, it did so under the condition that modifications to the framework of the ICC be put into effect. As they were not, the Bush administration made the decision to withdraw from the ICC. The position of the administration is that the ICC is a fundamentally flawed institution in its current form, and therefore the United States should not join until such time as these flaws have been addressed.
Slashdot Mirror
Any justification for such a statement?
Or is that a baseless, fringe statement worthy of black-helicopter conspiracy theorists who believe the US government is out to destroy them?
The thing is, the Democrats are set on dumping money on the problem, while the Republicans seem set on advocating responsibility with minimal outreach. So the Dems perpetuate an existing problem w/ social assistance, while the Republicans seem to not take into account the need to inform/educate these people before they're ready to take responsibility.
Would Al Qaeda exist if American foreign policy was different? God yes. Remember that Osama Bin Laden is not a man striving for political reforms, nor is he a man seeking a change in the relationship between America and the Arab League. Bin Laden and his ilk believe in a holy war against the West and the recreation of the Middle East's golden age, when a Pan-Arabian empire was a global power.
Likewise, take a look at history. The supposed "Palestinian Liberation" organizations were funded BEFORE the 6-Day War and Israel's occupation of the disputed territories. Their stated goal has always been the destruction of Israel and its replacement with an Islamic state, a goal which they have consistently attempted to ingrain into the hearts and minds of tragically manipulated and abused youth.
Take into account the now little-publicized fact that upon the creation of Israel, the British Mandate of Palestine was to be divided into not one, but TWO states (Israel and Palestine, democratic states representing both religions) coexisting peacefully... it was the Arab nations, falsely claiming to represent the interests of the Palestinians, who opted against this plan and chose to instead launch a war against the nascent state of Israel, which resulted in the boundaries that Israel had up to the 1967 war.
That's just an example, but it proves that not all extremists have legitimate grievances, and most are willing to create said grievances to justify their otherwise inexplicable actions.
I'm not denying that there the out-of-control population density in the slums is a contributing factor to crime and poverty in America.
What I'm saying is that the social assistance America is now providing to these people is not so much inadequate (debateable), but simply inefficient, because it does not take into account the values of the people we give the money to.
Here's what I meant by welfare reform:
1) Educational outreach in schools (for children), and workshops outside of schools for parents, consisting of:
- Comprehensively teaching financial management skills
- Stressing the importance of planned parentage, with free protection available upon request
- Reinforcing the importance of post-secondary education, steady income and literacy
2) Mainstreamed, standardized vouchers
- Coupled with outreach, this would give inner-city children additional educational choice
- Post-secondary vouchers would allow students that otherwise would not be able to attend certain institutions to do so, furthering their education
The key to breaking the cycle of poverty is education, awareness of financial and social situations, motivation, and proper work ethic. The current social assistance programs existing in the United States do precisely the opposite of this, creating a culture of dependency amongst the poor and preventing them from rising above their dire financial situations. This in turn leads to a rise in crime.
The United States could, with the money currently being devoted to handouts and the like, easily implement reforms like those I suggested, and I'd be willing to place bets that such a sytem would do far more to help those in need than the current welfare programs.
I come from a mixed family. My mother is ethnic Chinese from Malaysia, and was quite controlling for the duration of my childhood. I don't dispute that Asian children often yearn for more freedom, not do I dispute that Net Cafes and their ilk are an outlet for this yearning.
What I do take exception to is the chorus of 'tyranny!' and 'oppression!' from people who have neither been exposed to Asian society, nor known what goes on in the Net Cafes there. These rules, while they may seem draconian to some, are actually meant to protect children from what in Asia is an unregulated, often seedy business that draws the worst sorts of people for impressionable kids to consort with (gamblers, petty criminals, recruiters for organized crime, etc.)
I've taken my cousin to Net Cafes, and we've been allowed to light cigarettes, drink beer, and take narcotics. Not that we did any drugs, but the fact that such things were allowed, and in some cases PROVIDED by the establishments makes Net Cafes in Asian countries an entirely different animal than here. If these sorts of Cafes existed in Canada or the United States, parents' groups would be similarly outraged and there would be a massive cry for regulation or outright banning of the cafes.
It's not children's freedoms that are being shut down. The government of Thailand is trying to curtail a possible trouble-spot by imposing these curfews. I personally would opt for licensing of cafes, with regular inspections to ensure that a child-friendly environment was promoted (or that no individuals under the legal drinking/smoking age were allowed in cafes in which either are provided).
That's the passive way to do things.
While the afformentioned inner-city thugs or extremist groups may or may not have legitimate grievances, the United States (or any other country) simply cannot afford to appease these groups, as this would set a precedent for others who would then also use violence against civilians as a means of achieving their sociopolitical goals.
Inner-city drug dealers and hoodlums, regardless of color (because (if not joking) association of inner-city crime with blacks reeks of racism), ARE the problem. They may result from conditions of poverty, but they are in and of themselves a problem w/ society. The USA, and other countries, can largely stop this problem from recurring by adopting an educative welfare program to put inner-city children through school, give them employment opportunities, and mainstreaming vouchers, including post-secondary education in the program. Our current system of simply handing out money, or utterly neglecting the inner-city poor, is doing nothing but failing them. Nothing we do with this system, no amount of money, will solve the underlying problems (lack of education, mismanagement of funds, lack of hope/direction leading to frustration which in turn leads to crime).
As for extremist groups, the answer is not to fix our foreign policy. Sorry. Groups like Al Qaeda are comprised of bigoted, maniacal individuals who pervert good religions (in this case, Islam) to suit their goals. The Palestinian terrorist groups (such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Fatah (yes, Fatah), and the Palestine Liberation Organization), who claim to represent the interests of the Palestinian people, are also extremists who must not be dealt with or had concessions made to. Groups that brainwash the helpless children of a foundling nation (Palestine) to perpatrate attacks on civilians do not do so to further Palestinian interests; they do so out of rabid hate. I personally think that American foreign policy towards the Palestinians should be as such: offer to extend a helping hand to Abu Mazen and the legitimate Palestinian government, either through a multinational task force such as a UN peacekeeping contingent, or some sort of coalition, by deploying troops to help remove the radical groups that forment anti-Israeli sentiment, perpatrate attacks that endanger the road map, and undermine the authority of the Palestinian government.
I hate my mother.
In other news, I still want to sex my shrink up.
That is all.
posted by Tony Soprano at 5/24/2003 01:24:54 AM
All economies in existance today are command economies
I disagree. Perhaps I should have clarified, but it is the kind of government intervention necessary in this case that constitutes action befitting of a command economy. However, the United States is a market economy, wherein the role of the government is simply to define and enforce the most elementary rules of the market.
Breaking up Microsoft constitutes active intervention from the state in the interest of protecting citizens from what it sees as exploitation by elements of the market (in this case MS), an action in direct opposition to the economic policies of capitalism.
Don't be so hard on yourself. If you can look back and see what you've done wrong, you're definitely better than 95% of parents.
You only truly fail your children when you can't see when you're doing something wrong, even after the fact, or choose to ignore the fact that what you're doing is wrong.
From your post, I'd say you're probably doing much better than you think.
Grit? Please. Even calling the decision to use DV half-baked is an insult to bread.
Good ideas abound.
I can't stand parents who complain about the internet, television, rap music, or video games.
It takes a lot of chutzpah to buy a CD with a "PARENTAL ADVISORY: EXPLICIT LYRICS" sticker on it, and then complain about the music kids listen to.
Worse still are the parents who bitch about GTA: Vice City and its ilk. They buy these games for their children, games clearly rated 'M', and then complain about children being exposed to violent videogames.
It's ridiculous.
I don't dispute what you're saying. However, when one looks at incidents like the Columbine shooting, it is foolish to completely disregard the possibility of negligence on the parts of the parents.
You're absolutely correct: no person should be responsible for the actions of another. However, when we attempt to look at what brings about these actions, we often disregard the cold had truth, the fact that there are steps parents could have taken to prevent their children from taking these courses of action. Instead, North Americans tend to point the finger everywhere else but the child, or the parents.
A recent study found that not all jocks are mental midgets. Recent findings also indicate that cheerleaders may not actually tend towards sexual promiscuity!
But seriously... it took them this long to figure that out?
Popular thought with regard to children in America/Canada seems to increasingly tend towards one of two categories:
1) Passive Parenting
- Exposure of children to all media, regardless of content, with no explanations
- Laissez-faire attitudes, encouraging "expression" and "individuality"
2) See-No-Evil Parenting
- Shield children from "the evils of the world" - Strict enforcement of one's personal values on child
I believe both of these methods of parenting can lead to complications with children as they develop, personally. As I see more and more kids either completely sheltered and oblivious, or being TOO aware for their ages, I can't help but thinking that parenting has something to do with it.
I think you're absolutely correct about the legal system and the schools moving to correct the problems created by bad parenting, and I also agree that the results have been mixed at best. However, I think that a lot of the problem lies in the fact that we are simply too willing to blame the antics of our children on anyone BUT ourselves. It's always something in the media, be it TV, Video Games, or Music Videos... and I think this has to stop.
What we need is accountability on the parts of all parents for the actions of their children, and a fundamental change from the #1/#2 parenting styles.
Malaysia has, like Thailand, what it perceives to be an increasing amount of youth addicted to gaming. What one has to understand is that the methods of parenting in many Asian countries are quite different from those employed here, as is the perceived role of law enforcement. Because parents feel that they cannot simply order their children to stay away from the arcades, they put their trust in the laws of the land to prevent their children from what is seen as an unproductive, unhealthy activity.
I've been to Malaysian Net Cafes. Part of the reason parents are so worried about these places is because they often are havens for youth gang members, and still more often serve as venues for recruiting impressionable youths into the gangs.
Gaming addiction, while not so prevalent here, is quite common in the Far East. Kuala Lumpur has Net Cafes on every block, and enough children skip school or sneak out at night to play there that parents groups have demanded that something be done.
Many asian societies value strict adherence to the wishes of one's parents. These curfews have probably been implemented because parents feel extremely concerned that their children are defying family values (by disobeying their parents and playing games at all hours).
I'd actually say that what you're saying is in support of Free Market Venture Capitalism. To break up Microsoft, however beneficial it could be to the economy as a result of more competition, constitutes state intervention in the market and is befitting of a Command Economy, the diametric opposite to the laisser-faire, individualist ideology of capitalism.
The "abuse of influence" (the curtailing of competition through aggressive marketting tactics, hostile takeovers, and intentional incompatibilities with software made by other companies, and other tactics employed/being employed by Microsoft) is the only realistic way to maintain a monopoly; monopolies have almost never historically resulted from a product being simply superior to others in its class...
So really, while having a monopoly is "not illegal", if the means of attaining a monopoly are illegal, the end is also effectively illegal as well, no?
But, as you remember, the premise of T3 was that humans would inevitably create sentient, artificial life (the afformentioned Rise of the Machines). Skynet, the name given to the sentient AI system controlling the machines, took the form of a software-based US Defense program in T3. this program was called SkyNet for continuity's sake, if you ask me.
I agree with you about the time causality loop... It was the return of the Terminator to the past that triggered the alternate timelines, as the possible future interactions of Connor and others were altered, resulting in different incarnations of SkyNet. However, regardless of whether the Terminators went into the past, the creation of sentient AI was inevitable, as was Judgement Day, the opening salvo of the war between humans and machines.
And as for Terminator being molded after an old man, it does serve one purpose: T-101 was a state of the art killing machine in T1. By T3, it is obselete, having been eclipsed by both T1000 and T-X.
Someone should devise a system that could apply makeup to womens faces while they were driving.
:p
Imagine the drop in road rage and accidents...
just imagine.
Ryan Phillipe is cooler than you.
When Ryan Phillipe is cooler than you, you know you have a problem.
(ps: Your quotations about what I've said about those sources are not true. If you want to debate - try sticking to the truth. Things become much more fun then!)
Perhaps you should try heeding your own advice, Mr. Americanstateterrorism.com. If I didn't know better, I'd say that you were one of the best trolls I've seen on this site.
What you're saying isn't so much correct as it is baseless drivel.
command economis = letting the printing press run, lowering the value of the dollar
AHAHAHA! The United States runs on a system of free-market capitalism. Command economies, often employed by socialist or communist states, are the antithesis to the American model of capitalism that most asshats deplore.
charismatic leaders = Bush is on _everyone_'s lips
Dubya is put up to more scrutiny than most presidents, by figures on both the Left and the Right of the political spectrum. Dubya does not inspire fervent bloodlust and hatred towards any particular group. This comparison is at best misguided, and at worst an indication of your willingness to distort the truth to fit to your vision of America as a Nazi state.
secret polic = cia, fbi, you name it
You're a funny man, Troed. A funny, funny man. Perhaps you should be on the lookout: I'm sure the American Gestapo will be at your door any moment now with their black helicopters to take you away.
The CIA and FBI are not malevolent organizations. I'd like to see where you got this idea from.
persecution of ethnic minorities = muslims in the USA are forced to register for interrogation
For Christ's sake, that's assinine. Where's your proof? I demand that you back up this ridiculous statement with conclusive proof of the United States employing a policy of mandatory interrogations of all peoples of the Muslim faith. Furthermore, I demand that you inform yourself at least to the point where you can discern between religions and ethnicities. Being a Muslim is NOT an ethnicity.
calls for self-sacrifice = americans die in Iraq at this very moment, in an unnecessary war (no ties to Al-Qaeda, no WMDs) where the US government lied to the world at large.
I suppose you believe that the Americans should have stayed out of WW2. After all, what did Hitler ever do to them? Europe was none of their concern, right? Those poor, poor GIs, called to sacrifice themselves for an evil, imperialist administration.
Once again, your pomposity and ignorance belies you. You know absolutely nothing about America. You've linked to virulently anti-American and Anti-Semetic sites before, citing them as "credible, unbiased sources" and "another perspective to consider". You've chosen to respond to the testimony of LittleLebowskiUrbanA's coworkers against your claims that Muslims are subject to mandatory interrogations with labels of ignorance and obliviousness. I'm sure you'd love to believe so, but the testimony of LLUA's coworkers > contrived black-helicopter stories. Incidentally, are you aware of the significant drop in support for your PM in response to his increasingly anti-US stance? (Linked to the google cache of Clarinet for viewing convenience, as the story's now expired from their archives, meaning that you'd have to be a subscriber to view it)
That he did. He additionally opposed Allied intervention against Hitler. That article, which summarizes Gandhi's beliefs with regard to the Jews, is comprised of quotations from articles Gandhi wrote in 1938, all of which can be readily found through search engines.
Wow, that's a flame-worthy sig, dude! :P
According to the ICC doctrine and information available on sites such as HRW, the ICC can only investigate crimes after its inception the 2nd of July, 2002.
Washington cannot be concerned about former ministers being charged, because this simply cannot happen.
Washington fears the courts will be used to levy charges against its officials for political reasons, and that the courts compromise its sovereignty. While I do support the idea of an international court, there are valid reasons for not ratifying it at this time. There are many, many issues that need to be ironed out.
Additionally, the Clinton administration signed conditionally. The conditions they requested were not met.
Additionally, would you not say that it is not impossible that the pro-Arab nations of Europe or Asia could attempt to charge American officials for purely political reasons? Charges of genocide or crimes against humanity are damaging, regardless of whether they stick.
1) Israel was to exchange territories for concessions made by the PA as per the 1993 Oslo accords. Despite the fact that the PA controls 97% of the territory it was to be accorded under Oslo, it has made NONE of the concessions it agreed to.
And yet, you refer to the occupation of a sovereign nation by an aggressor?
2) If the United States gave groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the PA arms of the same caliber as are given to the state of Israel, I am sure that they would love to use them to deliberately target more civilians. However, to say that the general Palestinian public would take up arms in an attempt to slaughter civilians for political gain truly is pigeonholing them as terrorists.
3) The position of the Apartheid government of South Africa has nothing to do with what we are discussing here, so I can but assume that by raising this point you are attempting to say that you do not considered Yasser Arafat, a man who is responsible for the slaughter of thousands of civilians as a result of direct military action by the groups at his command against them, as a terrorist.
So, under the law of the time, the United States administration of the time was absolved of charges of terrorism. Not that that has anything to do with the Bush administration, but all the same. About the ICC, countries that signed to it negotiated changes to it to grant them immunities. When the Clinton administration signed to it, it did so under the condition that modifications to the framework of the ICC be put into effect. As they were not, the Bush administration made the decision to withdraw from the ICC. The position of the administration is that the ICC is a fundamentally flawed institution in its current form, and therefore the United States should not join until such time as these flaws have been addressed.