Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
I just finished watching a movie on Television, Kurt Vanneget's Harrisn Bergeron. Despite it playing out like a low budget movie, I found it rather interesting. The basis of the story is this: Through automation, the uneducated are no longer needed, thus creating a rift in society where the majority of people are uneducated, unemployed people. Because of this the second American revolution occurs where the "elite" lose power and the common man takes control. A new constitution is written stating that Not man is created equal, so the government must enforce it. This works by handicaps being placed on athletes with good ability and mind-dulling bands that people must wear. All criminals are executed rather than wasting resources on failed attempts of rehibilitation, imprisionment etc. However, the average person may be able to hold government office (this was released in 1995, so no it's not an attack on Bush), hoever they can not run a country. Enter the secret organization of intelligent people who litterally are the brains behind it all. I'll stop here, so as not to give to much away. I suggest seeing it though. It's in this section of the forums because I expect a debate on the right and wrong way of doing things will inevitably take place.
I read the short story last year, and I found it quite interesting. Basically in the US everybody has to be "average". Meaning the C's are the best grade you can get, and handicaps are placed on those who are smarter or stronger. For example, a 40-pound handicap bag can be placed on the arms and legs of baseball players and ballerinas, while the smart people wear headbands or headphones that distract them, not allowing them to concentrate. What Kurt Vonnegut tries to tell us is that there is a limit to how equal society can be. I noticed in the movie that even though it was 21XX, people were dressed like they belonged in the Fifties. Perhaps this was to show how far humans have digressed in their search for ultimate equality? Another thing that you must take into consideration is when the author wrote this short story. It was written in the Sixties, a time of cultural revolution. Perhaps all the events going on in America inspire this author to write a story about ultimate equality. Nevertheless, I believe that ultimate equality can never be achievable. There will ALWAYS be at least one individual who will stand superior to all the others. Now matter how much they try, that civilization shown in Harrison Bergeron is doomed to fail.
I have never cared for sci fi in the extreem like this. Human nature tends us towards revolt to the point of death when someone tries to tell us what to do. If someone told me to wear sandbags so some loser could keep up when he clearly isn't trying, I would promptly use those sandbags as a bolo. The only thing we have ever been good at as a species is fighting.
KIRBY098 I have never cared for sci fi in the extreem like this. Human nature tends us towards revolt to the point of death when someone tries to tell us what to do. If someone told me to wear sandbags so some loser could keep up when he clearly isn't trying, I would promptly use those sandbags as a bolo. The only thing we have ever been good at as a species is fighting. And whining. And stabbing each other in the back. And taking each other's shit. Actually, it's amazing we've survived at all.
ViperFUD KIRBY098 I have never cared for sci fi in the extreem like this. Human nature tends us towards revolt to the point of death when someone tries to tell us what to do. If someone told me to wear sandbags so some loser could keep up when he clearly isn't trying, I would promptly use those sandbags as a bolo. The only thing we have ever been good at as a species is fighting. And whining. And stabbing each other in the back. And taking each other's shit. Actually, it's amazing we've survived at all. Those are just glorious by products of our inability to leave each other alone. I kind of lumped them all into one category. It always ends up there anyways.
KIRBY098 Those are just glorious by products of our inability to leave each other alone. I kind of lumped them all into one category. It always ends up there anyways. Not true. There are non-violent solutions as well, such as.... poison.
The government already tries to make unequal people equal. It is called "Affirmative Action" and "Equal Opportunity". It took me 3 tries before I got hired on the FD, even though I hold a degree in Fire Science they hired minorities and women that scored a lot lower than I did. Not because I did badly in any of the written or physical tests, but because I am a white male. That book reflects what Marxism was supposed to be like. It's a system that looks good on paper, but in reality is a poison to the social welfare of our society. Funny when you look at the big picture. It resembles the liberal side of the spectrum. The Liberals want to push for this "Equality" and keep people like me from succeeding while they give rewards to the underachievers, not to much but enough to keep them coming back to them for more. Like a drug dealer. The Conservatives make you earn your keep, giving you a reason to go to school and working hard, making you grow. Without growth you become dependant and that is what the liberals want out of you… Dependant of them. mahkra KIRBY098 Those are just glorious by products of our inability to leave each other alone. I kind of lumped them all into one category. It always ends up there anyways. Not true. There are non-violent solutions as well, such as.... poison. To poison someone is assault. So in a sence it is violence.
K9Trooper mahkra There are non-violent solutions as well, such as.... poison. To poison someone is assault. So in a sence it is violence. Yeah, I know. It was meant to be a joke.
Spontaneous combustion was the only one I could think of. I want to see that happen. Just once.
K9Trooper Funny when you look at the big picture. It resembles the liberal side of the spectrum. The Liberals want to push for this "Equality" and keep people like me from succeeding while they give rewards to the underachievers, not to much but enough to keep them coming back to them for more. Like a drug dealer. The Conservatives make you earn your keep, giving you a reason to go to school and working hard, making you grow. Without growth you become dependant and that is what the liberals want out of you… Dependant of them. Affirmative action isn't about punishing people who work hard, it's about giving those who grow up in un-satisfactory conditions a chance as well. So, because they are born into a bad house, and go to lower quality schools, people who start out better should get everything? It's not about fitting everyone in to the same mold. It's about giving everyone an equal opportunity. They are not the same thing.
http://penguinppc.org/~hollis/personal/bergeron.shtml Read the story and see... once you try to boost the "less privileged", you'll want to impede the privileged... c'mon, you know it's true.
No, in fact, they are not true. You don't have to hurt the fortunate to help the lesser.
"Affirmitive Action"...there's nothing affirmative about it. It'd be called Nepotism if it was a parent giving their son or daughter a superior position because their family. You're reinforcing racism by basing employment/aid decisions on what skin color or ethnic background someone has instead of their ability to do the job or need.
No, you're not seeing the big picture. There are some people who just don't have the intelligence, skills, patience, whatever, to be a millionaire or a star athlete. Some people would love to get what they need and sit at home all day. Like the joke about a rich businessman who approached some young (20-something) adult on the beach. Quote: One day a fisherman was lying on a beautiful beach, with his fishing pole propped up in the sand and his solitary line cast out into the sparkling blue surf. He was enjoying the warmth of the afternoon sun and the prospect of catching a fish. About that time, a businessman came walking down the beach, trying to relieve some of the stress of his workday. He noticed the fisherman sitting on the beach and decided to find out why this fisherman was fishing instead of working harder to make a living for himself and his family. "You aren't going to catch many fish that way," said the businessman to the fisherman. "You should be working rather than lying on the beach!" The fisherman looked up at the businessman, smiled and replied, "And what will my reward be?" "Well, you can get bigger nets and catch more fish!" was the businessman's answer. "And then what will my reward be?" asked the fisherman, still smiling. The businessman replied, "You will make money and you'll be able to buy a boat, which will then result in larger catches of fish!" "And then what will my reward be?" asked the fisherman again. The businessman was beginning to get a little irritated with the fisherman's questions. "You can buy a bigger boat, and hire some people to work for you!" he said. "And then what will my reward be?" repeated the fisherman. The businessman was getting angry. "Don't you understand? You can build up a fleet of fishing boats, sail all over the world, and let all your employees catch fish for you!" Once again the fisherman asked, "And then what will my reward be?" The businessman was red with rage and shouted at the fisherman, "Don't you understand that you can become so rich that you will never have to work for your living again! You can spend all the rest of your days sitting on this beach, looking at the sunset. You won't have a care in the world!" The fisherman, still smiling, looked up and said, "And what do you think I'm doing right now?" Anyway, my point is... where does it end? First, you try to boost people over the wall... some people are too short and can't get over it. Next, you make the wall lower, but there still will be people who can't get over it. Next, you start pushing people off the wall so they can't get over either, and the ones who can't won't feel so bad about their failures. Competition is what makes us succeed overall. "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door" You are truly the heart and soul of what's horribly scary about a liberal. Coupled with your blatant insistence not to look at facts or logic. You are a die-hard, hard core liberal to the bitter end with absolutely no open mind at all.
Ok, you try to boost people on the wall, in essence helping people, but you don't have to lower the wall or push people down. Giving everyone an equal opportunity is not the same thing as hurting others. Crimson You are truly the heart and soul of what's horribly scary about a liberal. Coupled with your blatant insistence not to look at facts or logic. You are a die-hard, hard core liberal to the bitter end with absolutely no open mind at all. I'm sorry, but that comment was too stupid for me to care about.
One quote from the movie (as best as I can remember it), that I think would be what FlyingEngi means is "If half the population is gifted, and the other half is not, why not raise the lower half up rather than bring the upper half down?"
Actually, it wasn't. You blindly and blithely accept whatever POV the guys in charge(Kerry, Clinton, ET AL) on the basis that they know what they're talking about. All they really care about is regaining the power they lost in 1996. Beyond that, they could care less about "the little guy" except as a means to manipulate one group or another.
Hm...they could care less about the little guy, and yet Republicans support big corporations.
liberator You blindly and blithely accept whatever POV the guys in charge(Kerry, Clinton, ET AL) on the basis that they know what they're talking about. Hey, if you're going to say stuff like this, you should probably be attacking Crimson, too. (And probably most other people who vote...) And Crimson, let's take a look at what you said: Crimson You are truly the heart and soul of what's horribly scary Crimson your blatant insistence not to look at facts or logic. Crimson absolutely no open mind at all. How can you say all of this but then attack everyone who says Dubya is an idiot? Your insistence that he's not severely retarded seems to be based on no facts or logic whatsoever...
Let's talk about "Dubya" just a minute. His speech pattern, which people use as a sign that he is stupid, actually shows the opposite. He considers his words carefully before speaking, something that cannot be said of others. While I don't pretend that he is as pure as the wind driven snow, I do know that he is a much better leader than any of the alternatives. Quote: Generic Reporter: Mr. Kerry, what is your stance on abortion? John Kerry: I served in Vietnam! A different Generic Reporter: What about The War on Terrorism? John Kerry: I served in Vietnam! I think you get the picture. I myself would prefer someone more conservative than Bush. But I will be sitting on a hot rock in Hades having tea with Bealzebub before I see the most liberal politican in Congress elected to the Presidency.
liberator Let's talk about "Dubya" just a minute. liberator He considers his words carefully before speaking, and yet he still manages to pick words that don't make sense. (Also, many of those times that he's "considering his words carefully," he's actually reading off of a teleprompter...) liberator While I don't pretend that he is as pure as the wind driven snow, I do know that he is a much better leader than any of the alternatives. I'm withholding my opinion on his leadership qualities. All I'm saying is that he's dumb as a brick. That doesn't necessarily mean he has to be bad at his job. liberator Quote: Generic Reporter: Mr. Kerry, what is your stance on abortion? John Kerry: I served in Vietnam! A different Generic Reporter: What about The War on Terrorism? John Kerry: I served in Vietnam! I think you get the picture. And where did I ever say that I preferred Kerry? Actually, I believe the only thing I said on the matter went something like this: mahkra Kerry vs. Bush? Yet another reason I don't vote... liberator I myself would prefer someone more conservative than Bush. And I would prefer if our president (and politicians in general) weren't so stupid. But with the way our system is set up right now, elections are not won through competence. They're won through popularity.
That's how the Founders envisioned the nation, it's a core way of how the country works. It's obviously doing something right since we haven't been bumped off by a coup.
SuperFlyingEngi Giving everyone an equal opportunity is not the same thing as hurting others. Unless you're raising people in vats and controlling every aspect of their growth this situation is an impossiblility. Affirmative action bends over the white male and fucks him in his tender asshole. I've been a victim of it already for scholarships and job opportunities and I'm only in my early twenties. In theory it's a nice idea, but in practice you are still taking from one group to give to another, it's just the other end of the pendulum.
SuperFlyingEngi K9Trooper Funny when you look at the big picture. It resembles the liberal side of the spectrum. The Liberals want to push for this "Equality" and keep people like me from succeeding while they give rewards to the underachievers, not to much but enough to keep them coming back to them for more. Like a drug dealer. The Conservatives make you earn your keep, giving you a reason to go to school and working hard, making you grow. Without growth you become dependant and that is what the liberals want out of you… Dependant of them. Affirmative action isn't about punishing people who work hard, it's about giving those who grow up in un-satisfactory conditions a chance as well. So, because they are born into a bad house, and go to lower quality schools, people who start out better should get everything? It's not about fitting everyone in to the same mold. It's about giving everyone an equal opportunity. They are not the same thing. Explain this then. 3 times I was the top of the list for Milwaukee. The first 2 times they revised the list and droped me down to the 90's. Every person put infront of me was either a woman or minority with NO experience or formal training and I hold a degree in Fire Science. 2 out of the 3 times they brought in people that are worthless and are law suits waiting to happen. How is that not punishing me? Why should I suffer waiting longer for a job when I am more than qualified? Or better yet.... Why must I trust them with my life, when 80% of them are the laziest SOB's to ever walk the earth or are not physicaly capable of doing the job. Yet they have a job because of "Affirmative Action" claims it makes the work place fair. Fair for who? It's not fair to me. It's not fair to the public which depends on getting the best.
Aircraftkiller It's obviously doing something right since we haven't been bumped off by a coup. Take a history class and then come back to talk to me, fool. The US of A has existed for less than 250 years, which means nothing. Come back and talk to me in a thousand years. Maybe you'll have a point then... *if* the USA is still around... Egyptian was under the rule of the pharaohs for thousands of years. And many other civilizations existed for much longer than the US's unimpressive <250 years. Let's not forget about the Greeks, the Romans, or the Ottomans. (Or the Sumers. Or the Babylonians. Or the Assyrians. Or the Mayans. etc....) Or if you want to limit our discussion to more modern cultures, then we can just look at China and Japan, both of which have been around for thousands of years. Britain, France, Spain, etc. are all older than the US as well. Compared to other past civilizations, the USA is still an infant. *Maybe* a toddler at best. The fact that it has survived this long is utterly meaningless. EDIT: Also, ACK, you're forgetting that when the US was created, lots of people wanted George Washington to be King. Not everyone was into the whole democracy thing.
I personally am not a fan of Affirmative Action. I don't like the idea of people getting a leg up because of their race, which, in the end, is what Affirmative Action really is. When you look at it on a larger scale, by elevating a middle-eastern man (or woman?) to a level greater than that to a white, black, purple, or whatever kind of person, that is racism. The fact of the matter is, if equality is the name of the game, then Affirmative Action is contradictory. I know it is arguable that Kujar or Mohammed may have started out in less than satasfactory conditions, but that by no means equates to giving them a chance against someone who for fortunate enough to start off in better conditions. K9 is exactly right. He should have been picked on the first run through; not some people who are less then qualified. It is a shame, but capitalism does not favour ALL people the same.
In a life or death situation such as that, I'd rather have the person with the best training and skills doing a job than some chump who got in because they have boobs or non-white skin. Jobs should be based solely on personal skills and merit, not on preferential treatment like this.
Believe it or not, there's an even worse situation than this whole firefighter thing: I've been told that when you want to be in the army, you have to pass a bunch of physical tests. One of them involves being able to throw a grenade some minimum distance. Women couldn't throw the grenade far enough, so they lowered the distance required (only for women though) so that women could be soldiers. The absurd part, though, is that they lowered it to something that was LESS than the minimum safe distance to be from a grenade explosion! So women could pass the tests without being able to throw a grenade far enough not to kill themselves with it. I have no idea if that story is true or not, but quite frankly I don't really care. Either way, it's amusing.
I seriously doubt the validity of that story, I think anyone can throw a grenade past safe distance if they try. It's not like they're throwing bowling balls or something else.
mahkra I have no idea if that story is true or not, but quite frankly I don't really care. Either way, it's amusing.
Ok, I'm not attacking you for it, just my 2 cents are that it doesn't sound likely at all. The military is, of all places, the last place something like that would happen.
You'd be surprised. Ask some people familiar with the military to compare now with even 5 years ago. Standards have definitely fallen.
Standards falling to the point where people are admitted in to the army sounds like something that won't happen. Not being able to throw grenades 10 or 15 meters sounds like a lie, too, I bet most, if not all, women can throw a grenade that far. ...Did someone edit my post? That first sentence looked off, I just fixed it, but I think someone switched around my post...
heh, even the Canadian Air Cadet program has been afflicted by this. Most transition occured during my stint as an Air Cadet, and just a few years prior. One thing that we can no longer do, is something I found very effective at correcting some drill flaws. When prefroming the "at ease" movement, if we didn't have our fingers straight, they got rapped with whatever the instructor happened to be holding. It's not overly cruel, but still highly effective.
Standards have definately fallen. Drill is lax, competant and motivated instructors are few and far between, hell, even shooting scores are lower than they should be.
SuperFlyingEngi Standards falling to the point where people are admitted in to the army sounds like something that won't happen. Not being able to throw grenades 10 or 15 meters sounds like a lie, too, I bet most, if not all, women can throw a grenade that far. Here's another interesting army one: Women don't have to do as many pushups as men do. At least, they didn't four years ago; I don't know it it's changed since then. Anyway, given that most women weigh less than men, and if they have to do fewer pushups, they definitely won't be as strong with the "pushing away" action. Now, if a guerilla soldier (enemy) jumps one of our troops and tries to plant a knife in his heart, he can push the guy off his body. A weaker woman? No chance. And I would think that the women would want to be even stronger, since the men will usually just be killed, while the women will be taken back to camp and repeatedly raped before they're killed (not always, but often enough that _I_ wouldn't want it to happen if I were a woman). Although, sometimes the men get raped too. Abu-graib(sp?) and shittzor. ~Vip
warranto heh, even the Canadian Air Cadet program has been afflicted by this. Most transition occured during my stint as an Air Cadet, and just a few years prior. One thing that we can no longer do, is something I found very effective at correcting some drill flaws. When prefroming the "at ease" movement, if we didn't have our fingers straight, they got rapped with whatever the instructor happened to be holding. It's not overly cruel, but still highly effective. In Abu Ghraib, they would call that "torture" or "abuse".
Are you pretending that this whole Abu Ghraib scandal DIDN'T HAPPEN?!
No, but it's not as big a deal as the Left is making it. The Big Problem that I have with the Left is not so much that they are amoral bastards in search of political power, but that they are willing to damage something as vital as National Security to make it a political tool in their pursuit of power, as if it was something less critical like the welfare system or sommat. The first Duty of the Government of the United States is ensure that United States citizens are safe in the World At Large by ensuring that the United States has a military capable of defending against all comers.
The left is not INFLATING this scandal! What is happening here is positively terrible! We're torturing people, and it's positively terribe. It's not some little fraternity prank, as Rush Dumbass would have you think.
Yeah, and how come the Abu Ghraib scandal got so much more publicity than the Sandy Burglar one, eh?
liberator The Big Problem that I have with the Left is not so much that they are amoral bastards in search of political power, but that they are willing to damage something as vital as National Security to make it a political tool in their pursuit of power, as if it was something less critical like the welfare system or sommat. The first Duty of the Government of the United States is ensure that United States citizens are safe in the World At Large by ensuring that the United States has a military capable of defending against all comers. I agree with you, to some extent. Personally though, I think Bush totally fucked up with his foreign policy. He sent the rest of the world the message that we're going to go ahead and do whatever the hell we want to, regardless of whether it's justified or not. He basically spit in the face of the UN. If people like Dubya stay in power for very long, it will cost us all of our allies. And then where will we be? I know we've got the best military in the world. But it's not strong enough to rule the entire world with an iron fist. (And it never will be.) We NEED allies. I think Dubya made the World At Large a much more dangerous place for US citizens.
It is bad, but if they give up a piece of vital information after a little embarrasment(it's not torture, torture would involve lit cigars, electrodes in various places, medieval devices of various sizes), I'm fine with that. What your prcecious Left is doing is minimizing the fact that they are CUTTING PEOPLE'S HEADS OFF, not for information but because they are animals and most likely get off on it.
Crimson Yeah, and how come the Abu Ghraib scandal got so much more publicity than the Sandy Burglar one, eh? It's the same reason they show stories about kittens caught in trees on the evening news. People pay more attention to emotional stories. People being beat up in prison camps makes much better news than someone sneaking documents out of an archive. Also, the war in Iraq was already getting absurd amounts of publicity. Every time ANYTHING happened over there, we heard about it constantly for days or even weeks. It's no surprise that that stuff got so much attention. Don't get me wrong, here -- I think the whole Abu Ghraib stuff is total BS. (Well, not ALL of it... but people are making too big a deal about a lot of it. I mean, except for the fact that we broke lots of international laws. But I think some of those laws are silly...) But I don't think it's a ploy by the Left to make the current government look bad. I think it's just an emotional story that most major news sources know will sell papers and attract viewers.
Crimson Yeah, and how come the Abu Ghraib scandal got so much more publicity than the Sandy Burglar one, eh? Because the Sandy Berger case has an assload of holes in it. That's why only FOX will run it, saying things like "An unnamed staff archive guard told an unidentified source that he saw Sandy Berger removing documents from the archive! Now, this makes no sense, because if a guard SAW someone taking files, shouldn't the guard have stopped him, since it's his JOB? And FOX likes to run it to cover up on the 9/11 commission report being released. liberator It is bad, but if they give up a piece of vital information after a little embarrasment(it's not torture, torture would involve lit cigars, electrodes in various places, medieval devices of various sizes), I'm fine with that. What your prcecious Left is doing is minimizing the fact that they are CUTTING PEOPLE'S HEADS OFF, not for information but because they are animals and most likely get off on it. Yes, it is torture, you uninformed fool. They've been torturing people long and hard, with torture tactics that you wouldn't necessarily think of, like strapping people to boards and holding them underground until they think they will drown. It's not movie torture. It's torture. Also, one of the discoveries of the 20th century is that torture really isn't that effective. People being tortured want the torture to stop, they don't care about actually giving up facts. And no, torture is not justifiable. Pretending it is makes you a moron.
SuperFlyingEngi Crimson Yeah, and how come the Abu Ghraib scandal got so much more publicity than the Sandy Burglar one, eh? Because the Sandy Berger case has an assload of holes in it. That's why only FOX will run it, saying things like "An unnamed staff archive guard told an unidentified source that he saw Sandy Berger removing documents from the archive! Now, this makes no sense, because if a guard SAW someone taking files, shouldn't the guard have stopped him, since it's his JOB? And FOX likes to run it to cover up on the 9/11 commission report being released. 1) CNN ran it, Washington Post ran it... 2) This is an ongoing investigation, and also it's a story that was leaked. No one has denied this. Berger's lawyer and Berger ADMIT to the act, yet say it was an accident. 3) You can't pretend to know the proper procedure when theft is suspected in the White House. 4) There's nothing in the 9/11 commission report for FOX to want to cover up. The question remains: What papers were important enough for Sandy Berger to risk his reputation and career and fall on his sword for this way? What did he take notes on? That's what needs to be released here.
Crimson 1) CNN ran it, Washington Post ran it... 2) This is an ongoing investigation, and also it's a story that was leaked. No one has denied this. Berger's lawyer and Berger ADMIT to the act, yet say it was an accident. 3) You can't pretend to know the proper procedure when theft is suspected in the White House. 4) There's nothing in the 9/11 commission report for FOX to want to cover up. The question remains: What papers were important enough for Sandy Berger to risk his reputation and career and fall on his sword for this way? What did he take notes on? That's what needs to be released here. 1) FOX ran all over it... 2) Yes, it is, but it has some holes, to say the least. 3) If a security guard spots someone taking documents from the archives, you'd think it would be THEIR JOB to make sure those files don't leave when they are not supposed to. I doubt they're told to sit down and wait for the story to break in the news. 4) Yeah there is. The report shows that we've done very little of what we should to stop terrorism since 9/11.
So, because a right-leaning news outlet decides to run with a story that makes the left look bad... and that's somehow incriminating?? I don't know where you're trying to go with that. Maybe it has some holes because the entire fucking story hasn't been told in the news? Hardly exonerates him. You keep focusing on all this other stuff and not WHAT IS IN THE DOCUMENTS HE "LOST"? WHAT IS IN THE MISSING DOCUMENTS THAT HE WAS WILLING TO FALL ON HIS SWORD TO REMOVE/DESTROY??!
That's the question of decade. Understand something: The documents Sandy Berger admits to leaving the National Archives with are classified well above United States Nuclear Secrets. The posession of those documents outside the sight of Archives staff without permission or clearance is a Federal Offense. Mr. Berger is going to go to prison for a very long time. None of this is in dispute. What they are doing is attemping to cover up what he stole and why he stole. Come to think of it, shouldn't Berger's clearance to be in the Archives expired with Clinton's term of office?
SuperFlyingEngi I seriously doubt the validity of that story, I think anyone can throw a grenade past safe distance if they try. It's not like they're throwing bowling balls or something else. It is true and more. Women in the military have lower requirements for physical training. They have to do fewer pushups, situps, pullups and run 2 miles in a longer time frame. Their pushups, situps and pullups are also modified to make it even easier. Question here that no one can seem to give a straight answer to. How the hell do you accidently walk out of the National Archives with classified documents in your pants? I suppose he ran out of room in his brief case and decided to shove them in his briefs.
Well above Nuclear Secrets? Bullshit. Nothing is classified well above nuclear secrets, you moron. If you thought, you would seem a lot smarter. See why this case is retarded? Well, we know it was well above nuclear secrets, but we don't know what it is. Whereas at Abu Gharib, we have been torturing people, which is never justified. America does not torture people. Ever.
They don't? And here I thought that was the point of reality TV, Jerry Springer, etc. being developed. I know it tortures me.
SuperFlyingEngi Well above Nuclear Secrets? Bullshit. Nothing is classified well above nuclear secrets, you moron. What inner-intelligence circles do you run with to know that statement to be false?
Just like the libs to turn it around to the abuse stuff. Why don't you address the issue at hand instead of trying to change the subject? It's not like the entire Republican party and everyone who believes in the right went and did that stuff FFS. Of course we don't know what the documents were... if they were CLASSIFIED, Berger's theft of said documents doesn't make them unclassified, and it's not like we can just go ahead and tell the public what's in them now. You'd think that would be obvious common sense.
Crimson It's not like the entire Republican party and everyone who believes in the right went and did that stuff FFS. And it's not like the entire Democratic party stole documents from an archive... It's so funny to listen to people argue about politics. Regardless of their intelligence, people always start to sound stupid when they argue for or against a political party. I think there's just too much utter crap floating around in the media, so anyone who tries to follow politics invariably becomes more and more stupid.
But if the Democratic Presidential candidate employed Sandy Berger even after he was caught back in October stealing those documents, then I wouldn't want to trust Kerry in office, now would I? I am a Replubican (not straight because some of my beliefs clash with typical Republican ideals) because of their goals and beliefs, not because of the people themselves.
hydra1945 SuperFlyingEngi Well above Nuclear Secrets? Bullshit. Nothing is classified well above nuclear secrets, you moron. What inner-intelligence circles do you run with to know that statement to be false? Nothing is classified well above nuclear secrets. People trying to pretend that they are is just retarded. Nothing is classified much higher than nuclear secrets. What possibly could be? NOTHING.
You just don't get it, do you. You don't work for any intelligence agency, so how can you claim to know ANYTHING about ANY specific classified document??? There may well be a document out there that's more secret than a nuclear launch code, but you wouldn't know it. You know why? Because it's CLASSIFIED!!!!!!!!!
You don't have to work for an intelligence committee to think. And, if you wanted to make something seem as important as possible, what would you relate it with? Nuclear secrets! Also, what source came out and said they were classified significantly higher than nuclear secrets?
So you think Area 51, which obviously exists and has been photographed, is not more of a secret than our nuclear weapons capabilities or our development secrets? The entire government refuses to acknowledge Area 51's existence, but they're more than happy to tell you how many nuclear warheads we have and what general area they're located in. There's your common sense. There's plenty of things classified higher than nuclear secrets are.
K9Trooper It is true and more. Women in the military have lower requirements for physical training. They have to do fewer pushups, situps, pullups and run 2 miles in a longer time frame. Their pushups, situps and pullups are also modified to make it even easier. Not only that, but have you seen many Navy women lately? Getting to 33% bodyfat (the limit for women) is like a goal of theirs. As for Mr Burgler.. I don't have an answer, and I don't think you'll ever get one.. I mean, the focus really shouldn't be on him, it should be on why this information was leaked out by the massively conservative media in an attempt to change the focus of drilling for humus in Iraq.. He didn't do anything that Bush wouldn't do, therefore you should switch your attention back to Bush's service gap.. thanks
SuperFlyingEngi You don't have to work for an intelligence committee to think. And, if you wanted to make something seem as important as possible, what would you relate it with? Nuclear secrets! Also, what source came out and said they were classified significantly higher than nuclear secrets? Actually, nuclear "secrets" aren't that highly classified anymore. Pretty much anyone can find out how to build a nuclear device, and R&D stuff just isn't THAT highly classified anymore. Back in the cold war, sure, ok, but today? Fuck, we have an entire "Nuclear Engineering" degree at MIT. And while that may not encompass the entirety of the US's nuclear program, I can safely say that there sure as fuck isn't a class on "the names of every CIA field agent currently deployed". Mahkra- here's a scary thought: Snowflake playing with H-bombs (though less scary than the thoguht of him playing with miranda ...).
ViperFUD SuperFlyingEngi You don't have to work for an intelligence committee to think. And, if you wanted to make something seem as important as possible, what would you relate it with? Nuclear secrets! Also, what source came out and said they were classified significantly higher than nuclear secrets? Actually, nuclear "secrets" aren't that highly classified anymore. Pretty much anyone can find out how to build a nuclear device, and R&D stuff just isn't THAT highly classified anymore. Unless by "nuclear secrets" they mean launch codes and such... EDIT: ViperFUD the thoguht of him playing with miranda Fuck you -- now my brain hurts.
Crimson You just don't get it, do you. You don't work for any intelligence agency, so how can you claim to know ANYTHING about ANY specific classified document??? There may well be a document out there that's more secret than a nuclear launch code, but you wouldn't know it. You know why? Because it's CLASSIFIED!!!!!!!!! j00 w3rd st34l3r!!1!11! (j/k)
Wait, we've made it to page 3 and still no one has mentioned Hitler?
Aircraftkiller So you think Area 51, which obviously exists and has been photographed, is not more of a secret than our nuclear weapons capabilities or our development secrets? The entire government refuses to acknowledge Area 51's existence, but they're more than happy to tell you how many nuclear warheads we have and what general area they're located in. There's your common sense. There's plenty of things classified higher than nuclear secrets are. First, you could have used the NSA and/or Skunkworks as better examples of fairly highly classified government ....things, in my opinion. How many nuclear warheads we have isn't the same thing as how to make them or the launch codes we use to activate them. I'm going to use Crimson's and hydra's argument against you here: How can you know that things can be classified higher than nuclear secrets if you DON'T WORK FOR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES OMGOMG!!!! setstyle Wait, we've made it to page 3 and still no one has mentioned Hitler? Hitler didn't have nukes. ViperFUD I can safely say that there sure as fuck isn't a class on "the names of every CIA field agent currently deployed". I can safely say that there sure as hell isn't a class on "The launch codes to every nuclear warhead currently deployed"
SuperFlyingEngi I'm going to use Crimson's and hydra's argument against you here: How can you know that things can be classified higher than nuclear secrets if you DON'T WORK FOR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES OMGOMG!!!! Conversely, how can you know that there aren't things more secret than nuclear secrets unless you have access to the documents themselves? If you DID know what was more secret than nuclear secrets, I'd be very afraid.
Quite frankly, both of your arguments are moot because NEITHER of you know exactly how classified those reports were. You were informed they were classified, and the media has construed it on varying degrees of classification.
We aren't equal, the government wants you to believe that!
I'm not an intelligence agent, but I've seen one on TV. I would definately say that there are things classified higher than nuclear launch codes. Simply because, has our R&D stopped since the cold war? Hell no... So if Nuclear Secrets were the top in the 60's... Theres been 40 years to invent just one thing ping pong didly more top secret than a nuke. Think about it. Also how someone mentioned earlier that the Liberals are willing to compromise national security for the sake of using it as a political tool. I agree... I'm afraid for the day when a jet that says "Kerry Edwards 2004" crashes into the Sears Tower, followed by a press conference from Kerry saying "This is why we need a democrat in the white house!" Proving that he can have his jet flown into another building and not be stopped. Then use that as a tool to say Bush doesn't have security down pat. I bet he'd appear at the funerals of those in the Sears Tower too and say... "Yay Verily... These people... were almost as brave as I was in Vietnam. Yay Verily... WE NEED A DEMOCRAT IN THE WHITE HOUSE!" and the Grieving familys will be like... Crying and stuff and he'll be like. Vote Kerry. Or SOMETHING. Yep.
I agree with your 1st paragraph... I think the way you are trying to make fun of Kerry needs some work.
I was up pretty late. I don't remember much of it lol