That's probably my fault. ICN started trying to piece together their history several years ago.. none of us had ever really documented a whole lot, and the alliance had been through several different websites (starting out on vladlands.com)

Anyhow, I can't remember for sure who contacted me to ask questions.. probably Nole, but someone asked if I remembered who started ICN and when. I'm almost positive I discovered this game in the spring of '97, and thought I had joined ICN by the fall of that year. If SOL and LAF are the oldest alliances and started in '98, obviously I was off by a year. I know I was there for ICN's first reset though, when we split from TGA.

Because AT is absolutely DEAD lately without this kind of stuff :)

EDIT: Aside from the testicle/pepper thread, which was genuinely entertaining. Thanks Vic!

[quote poster=Jayr; 35223; 638227]you're* [/quote]

LOL! What a douche.

So, you violate a UNAP...
get appropriately retalled....
go berserk over those two retals, with grabs and destructive attacks...
and once you've been proven to be completely in the wrong, you go grammar nazi..

I reiterate: What a douche.

I trust Blade will have the good sense to jettison you from STONES.

LOL!

Ignore settings from before the new forums are still in effect, and cannot currently be removed. I just tried to remove the one person I had on my ignore list, and it wouldn't work.

A few things..

Its fairly obvious that yes, she's setting him up. Trying to get him to say something even more stupid and inflammatory than what he's already said.

Its also fairly obvious that yes, he's either a racist or he's afraid of the racism of his friends or others. He's a coward. Or a racist. Or both.

Yes, I believe his employers (or in this case, those with whom he has contracts) have every right to refuse to associate with him. Just as he has every right to believe or fear whatever stupid things he believes or fears.

But I wonder, for those of you who think his lifetime ban is the best thing ever... would you feel the same if it were someone else... someone who has views that are currently accepted by society at large. Lets say someone has an employer who hates Obama. Would you find it acceptable if this person's significant other goaded him into defending Obama in an argument (which was being secretly recorded), then went to this person's employer with the tape, and the employer fired him/her for his/her political beliefs?

I would find that acceptable, but I wonder how many of the rest of you only believe in freedom of association when it is used against those with whom you disagree.

And Cee... the fact that he's dating a girl of a different race doesn't mean he can't be a racist. Plenty of slave owners carried on relationships with their slaves.. would you say they weren't racist because they had sex with some of the people they owned?

We're just arguing in circles now. For some Christians, homosexuality is an afront to God. Can you really not see the moral burden in forcing such a person to facilitate or participate in a ceremony which he or she views as tantamount to spitting in God's face? To say that we can force someone to do such a thing means that freedom of religion only applies when we agree with it. Which means it doesn't exist at all.

The example of the war photographer is completely irrelevant. A war photographer voluntarily chooses to document war. Nobody is forcing him or her to do so. I'm glad you brought it up though, because it made me think of another example.

Why do we recognize conscientious objectors during times of war, and exempt them from military conscription? They believe that murder - even in the cotext of war - is wrong. We allow them to hold this belief, and do not force them to violate their conscience. We do not force them to participate in the state's game of mass murder.

You and I agree that murder is wrong, and we can therefore understand and accept the refusal of the conscientious objector to participate in war, even if we consider war-related killing to be justified.

You and I do not agree with those who believe that gay marriage is wrong, so we force them to violate their conscience.

You and I will decide what are valid moral objections and what objections are invalid. You and I will decide which religious views are reasonable, and which are not.

Doesn't matter what you see
Or into it what you read
You can do it your own way
If its done just how I say

qz, in your example, was there an external force hindering the market?

hint: the answer is yes

hint #2: That force was government, proclaiming that one race was superior to another.

hint #3: Supertodd is always right :)

hint #4: Anyone who took hint #3 seriously needs to chill out.

In your first example, there are some pretty huge differences between that and what most people have been discussing in this thread so far.

Most obvious among these, is that the private highway makes up part of a publically owned state highway. And besides that, road building is one of the very few powers which the founders of this country specifically granted to the Federal Government in The Constitution. Freedom of movement is an absolutely essential human freedom which the Federal Government is right to protect. That's also why I'm in favor of a complete overhaul of our immigration system. Now I'm in danger of getting off track though, so back to the point..... freedom of cake-buying or photo-purchase is not essential.

Your second example does bring up some good points. I believe that in the old thread which blid keeps trying to use to defame me, I even mentioned that perhaps it was necessary, due to the abhorrent (government-created) system of segregation, to curtail the freedoms of some people in order to fix the problem. However, we do not today have a situation anywhere in this country where it is impossible for anyone of any race or creed to live equally with any other. As such, I cannot see that it is any longer necessary to continue to assault people's freedoms.

And another key distinction which just occurred to me a few minutes ago: In all of the examples of supposed anti-gay bigotry which have been making news lately, what the supposed bigots are objecting to is not a person, not even a sexual orientation. They are objecting to - and refusing to participate in - an act which they find morally repugnant. Gay marriage. Now, I don't agree with them.. I don't think gay marriage should be banned. I don't think that government agencies have any business recognizing or refusing to recognize anyone's chosen mate. If two men, two women, or two men AND a woman want to swear fidelity to each other, then that is their business and theirs alone. But no one who believes that the Bible (or Koran, or Torah) teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman should be forced to participate in a ceremony which violates that belief.

So, now I have a couple questions. Let's say that you own a photography business. Let's also say that you are of the belief that circumcision is a morally repugnant act of mutilation, especially when performed on children. A Jewish family asks you to take photographs at a bris. If you refuse to participate, does that make you anti-Semitic? And whether or not it makes you anti-Semitic, should the government have the power to force you to violate your own principles and participate in the ceremony?

And if your answer to those questions is "no", then how does that example differ from that of a Christian refusing to participate in a gay wedding ceremony?

Oh yeah, and...



:) Crest, blid decided I was a racist because I think the "reverend" Al Sharpton and people like him are assholes who do nothing but exacerbate racial tension in this country. Because of that, he was the first (and so far, only) person to ever be added to my ignore list.

I wasn't very nice when I informed blid of his place on my ignore list. So, he has decided to follow me around and attempt to mislead people about me, by ridiculously oversimplifying my belief that all men should be free to associate (or not associate) with whomever they choose, for whatever reason.

He's right that I oppose *parts* of the Civil Rights Act, but as usual, he's being intentionally misleading. Stopping government entities from engaging in racism was absolutely necessary. However, I believe that telling private citizens who they must associate with was a very bad side effect. If some racist jackass wants to only associate with other people of his same race, no matter what color he is, he should be free to do that.

Your Swastika example is something I've actually dealt with in the past. When I was just an employee of my company, I once had to do a job for a middle eastern man who had a giant Swastika painted on the wall in his back office. I told my boss at the time that I'd never work for that guy again. As an employee, I was free to do that. But with the ridiculous laws we have now, as a business owner, can I do the same? Or would I be required to provide this vile person service, because of his religious views?

So RaTS FYA, I did go ahead and read the text of Arizona SB 1062. After having read it, I find myself wondering if you read it yourself. I don't see any language in it which does what you claimed. 1062 would have revised the language of existing Arizona statutes to include businesses in the group of "people" who may not have their right to exercise of religion substantially burdened by the state. That's all I can see that it does. Admittedly though, I'm no lawyer.

The problem which you stated this law would cause would, if I'm not mistaken, already be present with or without SB 1062.

If you haven't read SB 1062, you can find it here:
http://www.azleg.gov/...1leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf
Its short. Only two pages. Pretty boring, but its only 5 minutes of boredom.

So what everybody was so up in arms about, I guess, is that a business owner might be able to make the same distinctions that any other Arizonan is legally allowed to make? Man, I can't wait until small business owners get our turn as a protected class :)

RaTS FYA, if what you're saying is correct, then I've fallen victim to our dishonest and misleading media. I had not heard of this bill, saw the conversation here, and decided to look it up. I found a few articles from major news outlets, and all referred to this as a bill which allowed companies to refuse service on religious grounds (translation: Business owners can exercise their religious beliefs too). I still can't find an article bringing up additional protections for employees who refuse service against the wishes of their employers.

I don't have the time to read the text of the bill right now.. I have to get to the business of running my own business. Now I'm curious enough though to actually read it when I do have time.

Doesn't matter what you see,
Or into it what you read.
You can do it your own way,
If its done just how I say!

I can't believe that not a single person here (besides maybe Red X?) can see past the hype, to the more important issue behind all of this. Or are the people who understand liberty here just too afraid to speak about it? Too worried about being unfairly branded as a homophobe or a bigot. The fact that the AZ legislature even felt it necessary to pass such a law shows just how far down the road to totalitarianism the US has travelled.

Government enforced morality is all well and good as long as you agree with the government. As long as the government is moral. Which it almost never is.

As Viceroy points out, this bill was not just about gay rights. It was about the right of individuals (if they happen to be business owners) to practice their own religion. It would have protected their right to freely choose with whom they would like to associate.

The pet issue of the day is gay rights, so for now the government's insistence on sticking it's nose into everybody's business does no harm to most people. But do any of you people look down the road and consider just how much power this means the government has claimed over you?

"WE will tell you what is right. NOT your pastor, priest, rabbi or imam"
"You will do what WE say, not what your conscience says"
"Your idea of morality is not approved by the FDA for consumption"

THAT is what anti-discrimination laws are really saying. Does that really not scare any of you?

Are you sure about that Jon? If that's the case, it sounds like exactly the opposite of "stand your ground". More like "yield your house". I thought the whole point of stand your ground laws was that they protected your right to defend yourself, without requiring you to flee. Hence the name of the law.

If the law is as you've described here, I can't see what point it even serves. It would be basically saying that self defense is no longer legal.. like something the UK would do. Or NY.

I don't understand how anybody can say with such certainty that Dunn will walk. There are too many inconsistencies in his story, IMO.

He claims the kid got out of the SUV and came at him. The medical examiner says the kid was most likely still seated in the SUV when shot. Now, I really don't like the phrase "most likely" there.. I'd think the two shots that hit him in the thighs would indicate whether he was standing or seated when shot. But even if we ignore the ME's opinion....

He then left the scene and never called the police? Seriously? You just SHOT someone, and you go on about your business as if nothing happened???

And even his own wife testified that he never told her that the kids had a gun. Seriously? If I were on that jury, I think I'd find the rest of his story nearly impossible to believe, just from that one fact.

You also have a witness who said that as he was walking out of the convenience store, he heard Dunn say "You're not going to talk to me that way". That suggests to me that maybe.. just maybe he was angry, and not in fear for his life at all.

Maybe the kids were rude assholes. That doesn't warrant shooting at them.

Maybe they were racists and called him names. That doesn't warrant shooting at them.

I just have a real hard time believing any of the rest of his story.

Go to "Purchases", then click "Sell Military"

Thunder! Good to see you!

I was looking for you many many months ago... tried to find you on that other game you play, but stopped checking there after a couple weeks.

T.

You can keep purchasing and/or producing as much tech as you want.

mad skillz

What people paid for all their lives... More accurately, what was taken from people BY FORCE all their lives, and then a tiny portion of it was given back.

Why don't you do the math, bru. Take 6.2 percent of your income for your entire working life, then add another 6.2 percent for what your employer has had stolen, and see how the "benefits" you receive from "Social Security" compare with what YOU would be able to save FOR YOURSELF if all that money was left for you to invest (or not invest) as you see fit. "Social Security" is one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on the American people. It adds zero security, and ensures that the majority of people are dependent on the Federal Government for their retirement years.

You can call liberty-minded people "obstructionist" all you want. You're still wrong. There is no reason that any person should be forced to contribute to any government scheme. All men should be free to make their own future, without government interference, as long as they're not defrauding their fellow man.

And for your comment about "tea baggers caring nothing for their country".. you can seriouly just shove that one right up your keister. I care about my country. I care about the ideals this country was FOUNDED on. Self determination, liberty, freedom to make whatever you want of your life. I care about the future of my great grandson, who you're bankrupting with your precious "entitlements". I LOVE the country I was taught about growing up. Its just too bad that more and more, what I was taught is turning out to be a cruel lie.

Stll waiting for my thank you card for the five thousand dollars my family is contributing to yours in 2014. I guess maybe it got lost in the mail. Figures. Never trust the Federal Government to do anything right. You should have sent it FedEx!

I don't know whether any of you will actually know for certain the answers to any of these questions, but they're things I'm curious about, since the insurance commissioner of my state (WA) today announced that he won't let Obama's change derail tyranny here (IE: He won't allow our insurance companies to continue to sell us the products we ****ing want)

As I've previously mentioned, the "Affordable" Care Act was set to double my health insurance costs. An increase of more than $5,000 per year. So, for a brief couple of hours today, I was quite happy thinking I'd be allowed to continue to make MY OWN DAMN DECISIONS for another year... then our local petty tyrant made his announcement. Now I'm livid again.

So now, I'm toying with the idea of establishing residency in a state which has no income tax (like mine) and still believes in freedom (unlike mine) in order to avoid getting fleeced on insurance in 2014. Here come the questions:

Question 1: I'm not exactly clear on it, but it sort of sounds like perhaps only people who *already had* a "substandard" plan can keep that *very same* plan. Is that correct, or would an insurance company in another state be allowed to sell me a perfectly good "substandard" plan which suits my needs?

Question 2: How long does it take to establish residency in say.. Nevada or Texas? Would I even be able to do so before Lord Obama's mandate kicks in this January?

Question 3: What exactly would I need to do in order to establish residency in one of those states. Obviously, I'm not going to rent an apartment I don't use in another state just to save myself 5k per year on my insurance bill, but could I buy a small chunk of land, put a cheap trailer (or hell.. a tent) on it, and declare that this is now my home? If I found a cheap piece of land that will hold it's value for a year, this would make financial sense.

I think those are my only three questions. As I drink more and become more angry, there may be more questions :)

And oh yeah.. Bonus!

lmnop

Ditto. I cannot get insurance for less than double what I used to pay. So you're welcome bru. Your cheaper insurance is my yearly contriubution to your family (after the insurance company's cut)

FFS. So ticked off today. I just can't believe how many people think they're entitled to live off of others.

EDIT: Also, I find it ironic that bru loves the fact that the "Affordable" Care Act will save his family $4200 dollars per year... but if I don't like the fact that the "Affordable" Care Act will cost me more than $5000 per year, I can "stick it".

/fuming

Is Shaun McCutcheon not a person?

x

Manslaughter??? Did the guy who got run over die?

And I realize this is probably an exercise in futility, but.. you ask what did the bikers do that was illegal?

I don't know about New York, but where I live, the law is that slower traffic must keep to the right lanes except when passing.

It is also illegal here to intentionally cause an accident, which you can see the one biker doing very clearly in the first few seconds of that video.

Every account I've read or heard about this incident says that some of these guys were beating on the SUV after the initial (intentionally caused) accident and before anyone was run over. I'm pretty sure that's illegal in all 50 states.

And finally, some of the bikers themselves have said that they were trying to stop traffic so that they could perform stunts on the highway, correct?

Goofy, if you look at what the "Affordable" Care Act forces insurance companies to do, it absolutely does dramatically increase costs.

Insurance companies are forced to include (at least) the two coverages I mentioned above in every policy in order for them to be ACA compliant.

That alone increases the cost of insurance, but its minor when compared to the fact that insurance companies are now no longer allowed to decline to cover someone who is guaranteed to lose them money. If I'm uninsured and come down with a disease that is guaranteed to cost 100k per year to treat, an insurance company must cover me, at an 80k or 90k per year loss.

So is the insurance company simply going to take it in the shorts? Of course not. That cost is going to be spread among all of their customers via higher premiums. There is simply no other possible outcome, just as conservatives and libertarians have been saying for the last three years. Its really just common sense, and is now being proven true.

I can't remember who said it (and I don't feel like rereading this thread) but it made me laugh and shake my head sadly when someone here actually used the "freeloaders" argument in favor of the "Affordable" Care Act. When my insurance agent called me to discuss the notice I'd gotten about my premiums more than doubling, he - the guy who makes his living selling insurance - actually told me that my best option may well be to go without insurance and pay the fine. Lets see.. a small fine, and no insurance company can decline me if something terrible happens, or pay another five grand per year. Unless the "fine" or "tax" or whatever the SCOTUS wants to call it reaches 10 grand per year, it only makes sense for me to "freeload". This plan CREATES so-called freeloaders. How many of those twenty-something "freeloaders" do you think are going to go out and buy insurance now that it costs twice as much?

+bonus

Your party relies on people mistakenly believing that the federal govt is an essential participant in every facet of their lives. This is why they try to make it as unpleasant as possible whenever any effort whatsoever is made to reduce the size of govt. There are hundreds of billions of dollars worth of wasteful and / or duplicative federal programs, and they never see their funding cut.

They do the same thing on the state level here in Washington. Every time the voters refuse to let them fleece us more, they claim they'll have to lay off police and firefighters, or get rid of some popular program. Funny thing is, we keep calling their bluff, but the world doesn't implode.

Republicans are no better BTW. At least Democrats are honest about wanting a massive bloated government. Republicans claim to want small government, but when in power, all they do is increase it.

Two wings of the same predatory bird.

I'm 42 and my wife is 60. We have no children living at home. We had a plan that was most comparable to the new "bronze".. an HSA plan because I believe health insurance should only cover things you can't cover on your own.. Otherwise you're just stupidly paying an insurance company's markup on your minor health expenses, but I'm getting off the point here..

Prior to the "Affordable" Care Act, my monthly premium was $161.00 and my wife's was $272.00. We had individual yearly out of pocket maximums of $5000.00, $10,000 for our family. We liked our plan. We hoped we could keep it. That's what the President promised everyone, right?

Well technically yes, but you can only keep your plan if you're willing to pay through the nose for it. We just got notices from our insurance company a couple weeks ago regarding how the "Affordable" Care Act will impact our plans.

My monthly premium will increase to $290.62. My wife's will increase to $595.27. Our yearly out of pocket maximum for the two of us is increasing to $12,500.

Seems pretty steep, but I'm not being fair.. I'm not telling you all the benefits we'll gain now that the Federal Govt is forcing my big mean insurance company to provide essential coverage to all...

We get:

Maternity Coverage! Now that is something I and my 60 year old wife can really make use of!!!! I sure am glad we can't drop that!

and...

Chemical Dependency Coverage! Finally! I can pursue my lifelong dream of trying heroin, without worrying about the consequences! THANK YOU FEDS!!!

Those benefits are definitely worth the $5424.00 we'll be paying in extra premiums next year, and the potential extra $2500 out of pocket medical expenses we'll have to pay if God forbid we ever actually need to use our health insurance.

Again, dittie, IF I'd accidentally hit one of these idiots and they then became confrontational with me....

Your solution is to roll down my window and politely ask this gang to stop pounding on my vehicle? I'm sorry, no. At that point, they are threatening me and my family. And yes, I would do whatever it took to get out of that situation. Up to and including running over the wannabe thug blocking my path.

Absolutely, I'd be telling my wife to call 911, but in the meantime I'd be trying to keep myself and my family safe by knocking down any one of these morons who threatened us.

I'd agree with you Atryn that this is an idiotic lack of respect for the law on the part of this gang. But the SUV driver?

I've watched this video a couple times now, and I can't see what he's doing wrong. He's surrounded by a gang of morons on crotch rockets, who are INTENTIONALLY slowing him down to a crawl. Then one of the morons slows even more drastically. It doesn't look to me like the van driver was following too closely. In fact, it looks like the first idiot to get hit actually sped up to get in front the SUV, and then hard braked.

Maybe he simply didn't see the one dipstick hard braking, because he was focusing on one of the other dipsticks harassing everyone on the highway. We can't know.

One thing I do know, if that had been me and I accidentally hit one of these morons, then all of his buddies start pounding on my vehicle with my wife and kid in it, I would have done EXACTLY what he did. I'm getting the hell out of there, and anybody in my way is getting run over. I'm not going to sit and wait 15 minutes for the police to arrive and call my next of kin..

One thing I'd do differently... If that had been me, there would have been a lot more crotch rocket riding morons strewn across that highway. After the initial conflict, any one of them who came alongside me would have been pushed into the guard rail, until they finally got the message.

Heh.. Wish I'd come to this thread sooner. Been missing those bonus points all week because I too thought the text captcha box was just borked.

Check every day.. "nope, still broken. Oh well"

Thanks Xinhuan for the help.

Thanks Warster. I guess I was confused. Not sure if I read somewhere that the info sharing only applied to solo servers, or if I'd just seen ally ops posted before and jumped to that conclusion.

I guess I could have just read the forum rules posted at the top of this board, and seen rule #1. :)

Someone posted information about one member of an alliance that is currently at war being allied to one of the alliances that is not currently actively involved in the wars.

Which I guess is not allowed? I thought that rule only applied to solo servers though.

Hi alliswell.

If you do sign up for the upcoming round on the primary server, I'd also echo Rockman's recommendation. Find a good teaching alliance and play on the alliance server as well. This game is pretty simple to be decent at if you take the time to learn some of the very basic concepts. If you don't learn the basics first, any server can prove to be frustrating for a new player, as you're likely to suffer a lot of attacks from players looking to take your land (referred to here as "getting farmed")

LaF, MD, LCN, RD, TIE and Omega are all alliances that have long been established, have good to great tag protection, and are not currently at war with anybody. There are also smaller tags which are friendly and fun, and would be happy to have you I'm sure (including my favorite, ICN) but I don't know whether they have the same ability to protect their members.

Good luck, and welcome!

I used to be able to text without really taking my eyes off the road. Then my state made it illegal to text and drive, so now I have to text with my phone in my lap. :)

Seriously though, I could text and drive just fine before I got my stupid smart phone. I could feel the keys and knew how many times I had to hit each one for each letter. Never had to look to text.

I use those terms to describe Sharpton and others like him because he has proven through decades of despicable behavior that he is a charlatan masquerading as a civil rights activist. It is unfortunate that he's around, but assholes who do nothing but sling unfounded accusations of racism will always be around.

It is absolute bullfluff that that woman was sentenced to 20 years for firing a warning shot. A lot of people on the right who you probably think are bigots for their politics actually agree as well. Unfortunately, since people like you and Sharpton are always so busy hyping up racist charges where there really is no issue, people will just ignore the valid complaints like this one. They're numb to it after so many false allegations.

I'll go ahead and sink to your level for my last ever post to you so that maybe you'll understand (doubtful). In 16 years participating on these forums, I've seen a lot of trolls come and go. Most occasionally posted something that at least resembled rational thought though. Not you. All I ever see you do is make unfounded accusations, sling insults at anybody who doesn't think exactly the way you do, and spew vulgarities. It isn't surprising you consider Sharpton a hero.

You're the first person to ever make it to my ignore list. Congratulations! In the world of worthless trolls, you're an extra special kind of complete fluffing moron.

Good riddance.

So, because I disagree with somone who has a history of repeatedly making racist, divisive comments, that makes me a racist in your mind. Do you know anything at all about me other than that I think Sharpton is an asshole?

Do you know what race I am? Do you know what race my grandchildren are? No. But you assume I'm white (and a bigot) because I don't fall immediately in line with assholes like Sharpton. Who's the racist here? Might be time for you to take a look in the mirror.

People like Sharpton who constantly claim institutional racism even where it doesn't exist, cause nothing but harm. Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? Eventually nobody believes him. And yes, you're right, eventually people start to view all claims of racism with skepticism, because they've seen the claims of people like Sharpton turn out to be false over and over again. Unfortunately for Sharpton and people like him, most people are capable of recognizing hateful rhetoric and bigotry when they see it. Unfortunately for civil rights in general, the actions of these hucksters make people skeptical even of those who are legitimately working to elminiate institutional racism.


My statement that you quoted was far from "pure racist nonsense". You repeatedly bring up that an unarmed black teenager was killed and his killer was questioned and released". What you intentionally ignore is that the person who shot him claimed self defense and had injuries consistent with his story. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?

You say there wouldn't have been a trial of Zimmerman if it were not for Sharpton and others. The investigation was still underway, was it not? Good argument there. You can never be proven wrong, because Sharpton did show up to promote himself.. but perhaps (and I think probably) there would have been a trial. We can never know. What we do know is that the Prosecutor bowed to political pressure from the carnival barkers, laid charges that could NEVER be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and Zimmerman was acquitted.

Ok blid. Your name calling, obscenities and orders that I "shut up" have convinced me.

I'm a racist for calling someone out on his divisive, "us vs whitey" or "us vs the Jews" words and deeds. You're absolutely right.

/shrug

I never said he was "putting it to the white man", and I disagree with the original article's assertion that there is a "war on white people".

Fact: President Obama's administration fails to evenly apply civil rights laws.

Fact: So did the Bush administration.

Fact: President Bush and President Obama both helped some rich people (some minorities, probably mostly white) whether intentionally or not, by stealing from the American taxpayer in order to bail out those who are "too big to fail".

These are, at least in my opinion, all facts. I fail to see how President Obama's bowing to the power brokers on Wall Street and K Street somehow negates the activity of his Justice Department, which is just short of being overtly racist. (again, just my opinion)

"White folks was in the caves while we was building empires … We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was … we taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it." -- The "Reverend" Al Sharpton

No, not divisive at all.. Not using and promoting racial animosity. What a pillar of the community this man is.

Well that's just one quote, right?

Guess what. The Zimmerman case isn't the first time Sharpton has inserted himself into a racially charged issue and put forth a false or misleading narrative... Do you remember Tawana Brawley? Sharpton counts on you to not remember. She was the 15 year old black girl who in 1987 claimed to have been abducted and raped by 6 white men. Sharpton, angered that the DA would let evidence get in the way of charges, accused the assistant DA of participating in the rape. It was later found that the rape never occurred. What was that you were saying about "damn reacionary" white ppl? Why don't you hate Sharpton for his reactionary, hateful, race-baiting BS.


Well... Sharpton's defamation doesn't cause real damage. All that assistant DA lost was his reputation, and he later was awarded money to make up for it. No permanent harm, right?

Crown Heights. Remember this one? Sharpton may hope that you don't. After a 7 year old black child was accidentally hit and killed by an Orthodox Jewish driver, the absolutely non-racist and fair-minded Sharpton made the following statement during the child's eulogy.

"Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights. The issue is not anti-Semitism; the issue is apartheid.... All we want to say is what Jesus said: If you offend one of these little ones, you got to pay for it. No compromise, no meetings, no coffee klatsch, no skinnin' and grinnin'."

During the ensuing riots, Yankel Rosenbaum, an Australian Jew, was murdered by a gang of 20 black men. Did Sharpton, ever the finest example for our children, call for the riots to end and the voilence to stop? No, on the contray, he said "We must not reprimand our children for outrage, when it is the outrage that was put in them by an oppressive system"


More fun Sharpton quotes:

"If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house." - Statement made in defense of an anti-Jewish speech given by Leonard Jeffries.

"I want to make it clear to the radio audience and to you here that we will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business on 125th Street." - Regarding the Freddy's Fashion Mart incident. A non racial monetary dispute which was turned into a racial issue, evolving into rioting and murder, thanks in part to Sharpton and those whom he allowed to spew their hatred on his radio show.

"What's wrong with denouncing white interlopers?" - I don't know Al.. Would you take offense to a white person trying to keep blacks from doing business?

Al Sharpton is, IMO, a racist asshole.. a professional bigot.. a circus barker selling racial animosity and strife in order to increase his own fame and wealth. You can call what he does "seeking justice" if you want, but to me it looks more like peddling racial hatred.

Atryn, I don't know whether that comment was in response to my post, but if so...

I'm certainly not trying to play both sides of anything. This administration (and, to be fair, others before it) refuses to press civil rights charges against blacks. But when Zimmerman is acquitted of murder, the threats of Federal Charges are almost immediate. I believe this is wrong. Laws should apply equally to every citizen, regardless of their skin color. Do you disagree?

You're right though. President Obama's economic policies are damaging for almost everyone, regardless of their skin color. Our children and grandchildren, white and black alike, will be saddled with a monstrous national debt, courtesy of President Obama, President Bush before him, and countless irresponsible, dishonest, feckless Congressmen.

I agree with you that the article's "race war" premise is absurd. There is no organized war on whites in America.

But.. there are undoubtedly people in America who make their entire living by fostering racism against whites. The Martin/Zimmerman example cited by the article is quite a good one. Al Sharpton (in my opinion one of the worst "race-baiters" in the US) was there inciting hatred quicker than you can say "hypocrite"... Some of our major "news" organizations intentionally and egregiously edited the tapes of 911 calls in order to fraudulently paint Zimmerman as a racist... Without any knowledge of the details of the case, without any supposition of innocence until his guilt was shown, Zimmerman was demonized and made the subject of violent threats by those "race-baiters" referenced by this article.

I'd say that to deny the existence of race-baiters who remain relevant only by prolonging and exacerbating racism, is what really ingores the "current contextual arguments about race relations in the US"



You're correct that if we "look no further" than his inauguration speeches, Obama does believe in equal treatment under the law for all people, regardless of color. But do the actions of his administration tell the same story? His Justice Department refused to pursue charges in a clear-cut case of voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, but threatens to charge Zimmerman with a violation of Federal Civil Rights laws, when there is not any - and can never be any - evidence that his story of self defense is false.



The President should be looking out for the interests of everyone in the US, regardless of whether their ancestors were mistreated 200, or 100, or 50 years ago.

Yes, with one caveat.

The defender's readiness only affects their strength until it drops to 70%. So for example, a target at 70% readiness will perform at 70% strength, but a target that is at 50% readiness will also perform at 70% strength.

First off...

***DISCLAIMER*** I think bigotry against any group of people is stupid, and I have nothing against homosexuals. In fact, I just went to a wedding reception for a lesbian couple this weekend, but....

Of course those employers don't cite the real reason (if it is indeed that they fired someone for being gay). If they're firing someone for that reason, they can't tell the truth without being guaranteed of being sued.

If you're a business owner who disagrees with gay marriage, for example, you can't even refuse to involve your company with something with which you disagree on religious/moral grounds:

http://www.deseretnews.com/...ow-fight-isnt.html?pg=all

This is just plain wrong. The civil rights movement and the laws that followed did a lot of good. Elminiation of *government sponsored* racism was necessary. Elmination of your freedom of association (and the freedom to NOT associate with whoever you choose) was a very very bad outcome.

A black business owner should be free to not associate with whites if he/she so chooses.. and the reverse is also true. Nobody should ever be forced to deal with someone just because they're in a "protected class".

As a branch manager first, and now a business owner, I never fired anyone in a "protected class". I couldn't without risking an expensive lawsuit. Straight whites who needed to be fired got fired. Anybody else got their hours cut until they found a different job or decided to go on unemployment. That may sound stupidly paranoid, but I've actually got one employee who I know sued his former employer for "discrimination", after dozens of people in his position were let go when the position was eliminated. Rather than spend tens of thousands on lawyers and then possibly still lose to this frivolous lawsuit, they had to just settle.

Its time for civil rights laws to be reexamined, and for freedom of association to be restored.

Agreed.

I've always thought (since way back) that the ability to destroy a country in a few seconds was stupid. Like Xinhuan, I could wall within seconds back in the day, and it always seemed kinda stupid. No life (like me) you live... out doing something fun, you die.

I just don't understand this. I mean, the people here all enjoy playing this game, right??..

Why on earth would you be attempting to humiliate a group of players who've been here forever, bother pretty much nobody, and keep mostly to themselves?

I mean, I don't get why you'd want to chase those folks off. Presumably, they're no threat to anybody's rankings, right? They suck. They'll never beat you.. so keep talking smack about them until another tag is gone....... color me confused.