*joins TIE*

Tim Tebow is teh suck. His stats were abysmal last year. Thank the Bronco defense for his success.

Any alliance with Red X is win.

*hides in protection*

I cheer for the USA for obvious reasons.

My fav events are basketball, and women's indoor volleyball.

that's been debunked...

lies its a liberal conspiracy

true story

The girl that asked the question is cute

If the end result was to farm those countries, they wouldn't use BRs or ABs to weaken them...they would just farm the countries. SoF and LaF have more than enough resources to farm SPERM that they wouldn't need AB/BR to soften them up (and place those countries in DR!)

Lastly, are you a member of SoF or LaF?


I have already listed the two reasons why it is a dirty war tactic.

No more shady than calling in an ally? Well I consider sending untagged suiciders at the start of the set to be a step above that ;)

Otbol is correct. If anyone is concerned about members leaving because of consequences of War, whether it be for getting farmed after a loss, or exhaustion from a continued war effort, then the leaders of their alliance should change the way they sign pacts.

Except the farming part? How can you make that kind of argument? Xinhuan isn't saying that LaF/SoF don't farm, but that the BRs/ABs are not used to weaken the enemy so that they can be farmed later. Is this something you would agree too?

As for the friendly fire kills, no one is saying it's illegal. The question we are trying to debate is if it is dirty. I vote yes because (1) taking friendly fire should never be a goal and (2) the restart bonuses appear to be somewhat broken and actively seeking it is a bit shady imo.

As I pointed out earlier, your argument makes the assumption that LaF/SoF began the BRs and ABs to cripple SPERM so that they could farm them. That's NOT the case. The BR/ABs were done in response to the restart bonuses. The intent was never to cripple them and then subsequently to farm them.

This is where you are getting it wrong....refer to my previous post.

I'll add my vote to dropping land and letting your clan kill you. Dying should never be more beneficial.

Remaining untagged as a restart and jumping later is a bit dirty.

You have it the wrong way around. ABing and BRing are a response to the restart bonuses. If the restart bonuses were not in place, you would see more kills and less crippling.

Why not give a fixed rate for each week.


Week 1: 20 CS 500 acres (base cash)
Week 2: 30 CS 600 acres (base cashX2)
Week 3: 40 CS 700 acres (base cashX3)
....


or some other amount. It gives out modest bonuses based on the length of the game and it's not overpowered.

You responded with more of your opinions. The facts are NOT on your side. As I pointed out, in 2004 Israel conducted a study and found NO evidence to support the notion that allowing gays to openly serve negatively effects military effectiveness. If what you said is true, then the study would have been otherwise as there are no inherent differences between our servicemen and theirs.


===

But that's the Israeli army. How about our own? Well why not ask the Pentagon. They didn't offer their opinion, or as you would say whatever the boss wants, but they did a STUDY.

http://www.csmonitor.com/...l-of-don-t-ask-don-t-tell

The repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" – lifting the ban on gays serving openly in the US armed forces – is "going very well" so far, having no impact on troop morale, unit cohesion, or readiness, top Pentagon officials said Thursday.

Those are the findings of a new, as-yet-unreleased Pentagon report that assesses the first months under the new policy, said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said. He attributed the repeal's smooth sailing to a roughly year-long study the US military conducted before making the change.


Tell that to the service women that are raped (and males are also raped).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/...1/dec/09/rape-us-military

"Whether or not the case goes to trial, it is still set to blow the lid on what has come to be regarded as the American military's dirty little secret. Last year 3,158 sexual crimes were reported within the US military. Of those cases, only 529 reached a court room, and only 104 convictions were made, according to a 2010 report from SAPRO (sexual assault prevention and response office, a division of the department of defence). But these figures are only a fraction of the reality. Sexual assaults are notoriously under-reported. The same report estimated that there were a further 19,000 unreported cases of sexual assault last year. The department of veterans affairs, meanwhile, released an independent study estimating that one in three women had experience of military sexual trauma while on active service. That is double the rate for civilians, which is one in six, according to the US department of justice."


====

Before you continue on with another opinionated response, please inform yourself of the facts.

Deerhunter:

In response to Bin Laden, I have already posted that George Bush did NOT do everything in his power to capture or kill Bin Laden. We even had him in our crosshairs and he did not attack.

From my earlier post:

http://www.texaskaos.net/diary/3899/

"The Clinton/Gore administration went after Bin Laden right up to point of Bush entered the White House and had the Bush administration taken national security briefings from the Clinton anti-terror team seriously, the Twin Towers might still be standing.

Instead the Bush team, including National Security Advisor Condi Rice dismissed Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke, and the Clinton team's warning as paranoia and were literally on vacation when ominous intelligence noise should have terrified them awake. Clinton was accused of being "obsessed with Bin Laden" and, as Republican Congressmen like Tom Delay and Arlen Specter insinuated, of trying to distract people from the Lewinsky scandal."



http://www.salem-news.com/...12/bin-laden-salon-tk.php

"Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn’t get the institutional support they needed,” says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.'

The Tora Bora mess:

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/.../doc/Tora_Bora_Report.pdf

I've also addressed that Truck driver nonsense but that conveniently ignored ;)

What you said about gays serving in the military was ridiculous. You have no proof, just "well I think" and "obviously they are hiding my opinion". Turns out that even Israel has allowed gays to serve in the military. In 2004, they conducted a study and found NO evidence that allowing gays to server lowered military effectiveness.


=====

Good post by Twain. Deerhunter, before you reply to any of our responses, you might want to get some numbers/articles on your side. Your opinion isn't going to cut it.

DeerHunter:

What is UE?

Klown:

Paul Volcker deserves the credit for getting the economy on the right footing in the 80s not Reagan. Reagan was not "trading off employment to get inflation under control", that was Volcker.

The economy is improving, but it's still in the tank. What I don't see from most Republicans/Conservatives/anti-Obamaians is that the economy is in fact improving. It will take awhile to get going. Luckily for Obama many Americans still feel it's Bush's fault.

As for Reagan, he increased payrolls because he grew government. The guy increase government payrolls while Obama has shrunk them. So if you want Obama to do what Regan did, then you should welcome a big government democrat with open arms.


Second, what you said is incorrect @ Regan's economy.

http://www.thestreet.com/...eagan-in-five-charts.html

Some highlights:

Quarterly unemployment was above 10% at the end of four straight quarters during Reagan's first term -- the worst quarter-ending rate under Obama has been 9.9% -- but by May 22, 1984, the rate had dropped to 7.8%, or 0.4 percentage points lower than Obama's current rate.

The S&P closed on Reagan's Inauguration Day at 131.65 and it rose to 153.88 by May 22, 1984. That's a 16.9% gain.

On Obama's Inauguration Day, the index finished at 805.22. The index closed at 1,316.63 on Tuesday, marking a 63.4% gain.


Take note of the GDP graphs vs Obama and Reagan.

------
Btw, equating the two economies is a bit dishonest. The recession Reagan "fixed" was caused by inflation...which was fixed by the Fed NOT by Reagan. Obama had to deal with a financial collapse and the housing bubble.

Nice response @ UBer Bu.
====
Deerhunter:



Why do you keep lying lol.
Did I say it was the best thing Obama did? Nope.
Did I say it was a good thing Obama did (not the best)? Yes.




Eh...
http://www.freep.com/...o-bailouts-helped-economy

What do you mean by "tiny fraction of the bail out"? Are you confusing the auto-bailout with the stimulus?



What gives you any idea Romney would do better? He was a so-so governor and his policies mirror those of Bush and Obama.

You may not have noticed but I referenced Bush as an example of a Republican president that pushed the same policies as Obama. This would also imply that Mitt Romney would do the same as Obama…if not worse. I did not imply that Bush fails therefore Obama wins.

in reference to Bush and Bin Laden, that was a direct response to you trying to discredit Obama's success because of Bush's policies.



I listed TWO direct examples. The Bailout, and Bin Laden. I also provided a link to other good things Obama has done.

A for the jobs etc. The U.S. Treasury Department reports that since GM and Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy, the auto industry has created 115,000 jobs, its strongest period of job growth since the late 1990s. GM, Ford and Chrysler have all returned to profitability, and in 2010, the “Detroit three” gained market share for the first time since 1995. And treasury officials say they are on track to recover most of the $80 billion investment.

Also see:
http://www.nytimes.com/...unday/a-million-jobs.html

"Four years later, there are 1.45 million people who are working as a direct result of the $80 billion bailout, according to the nonpartisan Center for Automotive Research, both at the carmakers and associated businesses downstream in the economy. Michigan’s unemployment level is at its lowest level in three years. G.M. is again the world’s biggest automaker, and both companies are reporting substantial profits."

So your attempt to discredit the job growth, or whatever that tactic you employed was, makes no dents.



This exposed your and most of the thinking by the right. I am very tempted to end this discussion with you because it's very clear you aren't interested in honest discussion; it's always Obama's fault no matter what!

Some things I want to see a response on:

-The info I provided about Truck drivers
-An answer to the Ronald Reagan question (although I suppose you don't have to answer it but it ties nicely into my most recent paragraph)

Deerhunter:



Oh really? Bush stopping Bin Laden?


http://www.texaskaos.net/diary/3899/

http://www.salem-news.com/...12/bin-laden-salon-tk.php

The Tora Bora mess:

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/.../doc/Tora_Bora_Report.pdf




You mean like extending the Bush tax cuts (a republican idea and one Romney would continue), and saving the auto-industry (which most economist agree was a GOOD thing)? You do realize the economy is RECOVERING right?

The Pentagon submitted a report that they can do well with a budget cut. Who are you or anyone in congress to say they are wrong?



For a summary of Fortune Magazine's findings, which conclude the ATF had no policy that intentionally permitted weapons to be trafficked:

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/...p-the-atf-and-gun-stores/

Also see:

http://www.azcentral.com/...ers/Blog/EJMontini/165782

"As for the bad guys, a recent Fortune magazine article about Fast and Furious pointed to the gun-friendly situation in Arizona and said: “By 2009 the Sinaloa drug cartel had made Phoenix its gun supermarket and recruited young Americans as its designated shoppers or straw purchasers.”"




True story. But did you know that this is something a Republican would do? George Bush did the same thing. I expect Romney would as well. Why? It's a benefit for business. In 2009, Congress defunded Bush's pilot program that allowed Mexican truckers to drive in the US. Mexico responded with a tariff on our good. This cost U.S. businesses more than $2 billion and had cut U.S. exports to Mexico of affected agricultural commodities by 27 percent.

How big is the market in Mexico for US exports? Mexico is the No. 2 export market for U.S. pork, behind Japan.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the deal would make the U.S.-Mexico border more efficient and increase the competitiveness of the North American economy.

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/...ies-idUSTRE7655HP20110706

Many actions the government takes hurts one group but provides a larger benefit (or is supposed to) to the country. I wouldn't call this particular issue an infringement on your freedoms or Anti-American.


There is zero proof that the military has degraded at all.

=====
The jury is still out on Obamacare. The total cost to businesses is not well defined i.e. will it be more expensive to cover or take the penalty?

But I think the costs of granting 40M more Americans coverage is a good thing at the cost of raising taxes on about 1-3% of the workforce.

=====
1 good thing Obama did? I have already shown Bush was a failure at getting Bin Laden. Score one for Obama.

He saved the auto-industry. Score one for Obama.

But if you want a list:
http://whatthefluffhasobamadonesofar.com/

=====
I got a question for you Deerhunter, if Ronald Reagan were alive today and could run for president, would you vote for him?

Is that a concession admitting that Obama has done nothing with regards to being anti-gun? It sounds like a concession and a speculation with zero evidence.

I'm glad some of you have pointed out the problem in American politics....money.

This is a joke right? So a liar and a fool should get a second term? You do realize Mitt Romney is one of the biggest flip floppers of all time right?

I would much rather focus on his record as governor. The government is not exactly a business and either way the governorship aligns more with his desired position.

And for that....I point you here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...vernorship_of_Mitt_Romney

Canadian oil is also sold on the world market...which means it would be subject to the same cost structure we have now. This is the same for all of the other suppliers you suggested.



Speculators are an issue, I believe they add about 60c per gallon (can't remember exactly), but so is Iran's threats to cut off a major supply of oil.



'Obamacare' isn't socialized medicine. Even if it were that would probably be a good thing. The US Healtcare system is rated #37 and behind just about every socialized healthcare system in the world.

voltron you need to understand that gas prices are determined on the global market. The drivers of gas prices are fluctuations in global supply, such as Iran blocking key transit waterways, and rising global demand from China and India. What you proposed will only lower gas by a few cents per gallon.

I will be voting for Obama. I'm not happy with his first term for various reasons but I don't think a Romney administration is something we need right now.

Earth Empires @ topic title

lol

nice job king

terrible

Herman Cain....biggest moron since Palin.

Republicans should be proud their party looks so intelligent.