sees_all1

[hide] Yeah! And why do we have parents forcing their kids to do homework! Reading and Math, ugh. And schools that force their students to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day! The nerve of some people! [/hide] On the topic of "indoctrination": Parents generally have their children's best interests at heart. While you or I may disagree with what they're teaching or their methods of teaching, it isn't our place to judge, and just short of abuse or neglect, we shouldn't try and get involved.

Yeah! And why do we have parents forcing their kids to do homework! Reading and Math, ugh. And schools that force their students to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day! The nerve of some people!

Can we add a "year" or "all" graph, which shows more than a month of data? :mrgreen:

Stronghold of Security is always highly recommended for melee training. Moss giants as well, and probably hill giants now that the bots are gone. I did ice giants for range training, usually worlds are empty and once they become unaggressive you can stay there for hours. As far as wood cutting, Draynor is always recommended if you want to bank. If you want to burn, head further south-west. Forget the name, but its near the entrance to ice giants.

That count is the number of days away from the White House. Its unrealistic to think that Bush did nothing each or any of those days, most of them were to his ranch in Texas, where his staff would go too.

Bush won a lot of popularity because he talked like "one of them", the common man and woman. You're not seriously blaming anyone for holding double standards when they're promoting an image Bush himself wanted, are you? I'm certain Bush loved being called an idiot. :rolleyes: It's not that leaders occasionally make gaffes that I care about, it's how the media and others treat it afterwards. Last comparison between Bush and Obama. There was media outrage when Bush played 24 rounds of golf in his first three years as President (he never played after that). Obama has played 90 or more.

Or wireless N routers.

I can't comment on anything Al Sharpton says or else I'm a racist, but any liberal is allowed to say anything they want about Clarence Thomas, Allen West, or Herman Cain. Furthermore, if I say Obama is clean and articulate, I'm racist, but when Harry Reid says it, it's a complement. I can go on and on for each example, but if you haven't realized it yet, you may never understand it, and I'm seriously late for that clan meeting. :rolleyes: Are you trolling? Nope. When George W. Bush pronounces nuclear wrong, he's an idiot. When Barrack Obama pronounces Navy corpsmen wrong, everyone ignores it.

wat Excuse me, that was Joe Biden. Harry Reid said that he was electable because he was light skinned and with no negro dialect. My apologies for confusing the two. EDIT: Also, I think its a bit unfair that the Black Panthers aren't prosecuted for voter intimidation, even though they were filmed outside of a polling place with a nightstick.

This is a win for the consumer everywhere. Companies cannot advertise flat out lies, and are held liable for their fraudulent advertising. We don't need another law to stop car companies from posting bogus information, we just need people to use the courts and procedures in place. Also, not sure how many of you know this, but in the first mile after you drive your new car off the lot, its value drops about 25%-35%. So that figure can mean many things, value lost in the car, money for gas, court fees, etc.

I can't comment on anything Al Sharpton says or else I'm a racist, but any liberal is allowed to say anything they want about Clarence Thomas, Allen West, or Herman Cain. Furthermore, if I say Obama is clean and articulate, I'm racist, but when Harry Reid says it, it's a complement. I can go on and on for each example, but if you haven't realized it yet, you may never understand it, and I'm seriously late for that clan meeting. :rolleyes:

As a conservative, I feel oppressed every time people shout "Racist! Bigot! Homophobe! Misogynist! Anti-Semite! Islamaphobe! Heartless! Warmonger! Redneck!" Yep, you know me. I hate Blacks, Gays, Lesbians, Women, Jews, Muslims, Poor People. I think that covers what, 99.7% of the world's population? And by the way, I love going to war with other countries, I cling to my guns and religion, I love nascar and above all Pabst Blue Ribbon. Excuse me, I'm late for my White Power rally.

Yeah! I hate how much scrutiny occupy wall street got from the media, and how little scrutiny the tea party gets! It's like there's a conservative media agenda. I also hate how the media was going through all of Jon Edwards stuff, being all super sleuthy, and reporting on rumors of his alleged affairs every day, when they didn't even mention any of the half dozen, credible and documented attacks against Herman Cain... Get over yourself.

You would think that in a post racial world, it wouldn't matter what either group said. Guess we're not quite there yet.

In the long run, elevating one ethnic group and giving it a special status hurts relations more than it helps. When it comes to programs attempting to help an ethnic group, usually it ends up hurting them. While I don't feel I have any authority to speak on the subject, I've read several prominent African Americans describe how affirmative action has made them feel inferior by lessening their accomplishments, exactly opposite of what it was intended to do. Logically, I can understand that. http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155469/go-ahead-apologize

This, more or less. It'd be a good idea to make healthcare more efficient/affordable before letting the government manage it (In the States, at least). Also, the way you make healthcare more efficient/affordable is removing the profit factor. Which can't really happen unless it's government managed. You can never remove "profit," unless you want your system to suffer dramatically. You can minimize profit in an economical way. A true free market is used, and healthcare providers become price takers, which can't really happen if government is involved. The Canadian medical system is not "for profit", and it's just fine. Just because something isn't labeled "for profit" doesn't mean it doesn't profit. If there really was no profit in the healthcare system, no one would waste their time with working there.

This, more or less. It'd be a good idea to make healthcare more efficient/affordable before letting the government manage it (In the States, at least). Also, the way you make healthcare more efficient/affordable is removing the profit factor. Which can't really happen unless it's government managed. You can never remove "profit," unless you want your system to suffer dramatically. You can minimize profit in an economical way. A true free market is used, and healthcare providers become price takers, which can't really happen if government is involved.

Not sure how they can deem this theft... JaGEx still owns both.

That's not something I was trying to defend in this argument, but I'll take it on. If someone pirates a product instead of paying for it, then turns someone who would otherwise not have bought it onto a purchase, I consider it paid. And then it's actually a win-win. Gray area #2: a lost sale may lead to one or more sales that would otherwise not have existed. That argument works when the product is fairly unknown... Unfortunately, it would seem that the vast majority of pirated content isn't the unknown, it's the known.

Iron ore is what, 380 each? That puts it up to 300k/hr. Plus the price of rares has dropped (I think the Green H'ween is down 20% or more), makes it easier than ever to own a rare.

What I'm splitting hairs over is the difference between an inalienable right, a right, and an entitlement. Government sponsored/run healthcare is at best a right for those apart of that country, but in no way is it an inalienable right. I'd say its closer to an entitlement though. Are you suggesting that a government should only provide those things which we have an inalienable right to? I'm just curious, I don't see where you're going here... This is the post a few pages back that triggered the discussion. [hide] I don't believe that healthcare is an inalienable right endowed by the Creator. I don't believe doctors or hospitals should have a moral legal obligation to treat people. Sure, turning people away from hospitals if they're unable to pay is "cruel," but having to shut down entire burn units in hospitals because of criminals making meth is worse for the general population. In the strictest John Locke sense of government (that the USA is founded on), requiring a health care professional to treat someone violates the professional's freedoms (and in a sense is tyranny). Government (We the people) paying for healthcare for those who can't (i.e. making the taxpayers pay for the poor) violates the rights of the people. That's not to say that people who can't pay shouldn't be treated, it means that's left up to charity. In my opinion, that also means that people who can't pay shouldn't receive the latest and greatest, most costly treatment. EDIT:fixed an inconsistency... :oops: [/hide] My entire point in that tangent was that just because something's nice to have the government manage doesn't make it an inalienable right. There were a few other things but I think I've lost sight of the original discussion. :sad:

What I'm splitting hairs over is the difference between an inalienable right, a right, and an entitlement. Government sponsored/run healthcare is at best a right for those apart of that country, but in no way is it an inalienable right. I'd say its closer to an entitlement though.