Posts made by BlackWatch

@Yanny:

Is it just me or is that unconstitutional?

And on top of being unconstitutional (but who’s looking anyway?), isn’t it just a tad dumb?

Bush’s proposal is to have the military act as lead agency in “extreme” cases. Anyone care to define extreme? Take Katrina for example. Was it extreme BEFORE the levees broke or after (and if it after, aren’t you turning the whole shebang over to an agency whose works had caused the failure to begin with, i.e. the Army Corps of Engineers)??

The military does its job well for two reasons:

1. It has a relatively clear mandate to protect us from foreign enemies.
2. It has more money than it knows what to do with.

Why break something that at least seems to be working by saddling it with a very fuzzy mandate?

BW

@Janus1:

BW: i like how you ignore my response entirely…

and…

@Janus1:

I am also a practising Christian, and I see removing the words as a protection of of my faith, not an infringement of it.

and i am an atheist, and i see this as irrelevent to my lack of faith.

Gee, I guess that means we disagree. However since you so desperately want a personal response I will reaffirm - yes - we disagree on this.

However, if the inclusion or exclusion of “under God” makes no difference to you then why are you even participating in this discussion?

On a side note - do you think blacks have a right to be upset when the Stars and Bars are flown over a courthouse they are entering to plead a case? Isn’t the flag just a meaningless little piece of cloth? Or do you think perhaps it might indicate a possible bias against someone of color seeking fair and equal treatment before the law?

Finally, you may think that the issue is petty and blown way out of scale. I would offer this bit of history as counterpoint:

In 1933 Hitler and company ran around breaking glass and burning books in Munich - just a bit of tomfoolery by those in charge, right??. But there was nobody there to tell them no, so by 11 short years later they believed they could get away with the murder of over 6 million people as part of legitimate state policy.

I don’t give a rat’s patoot how small an issue is - if a government thinks it can break its own laws, only the citizenry can tell them no, because the government has lost the ability to police itself. If no citizen will tell it no, then the government will take further steps to infringe on the rights of individuals. It is the nature of the beast, which can NEVER be trusted completely - it ALWAYS must be open to scrutiny and criticism.

God Bless America for still having a system that allows this suit to happen and for an individual to win it. When that is gone, we all will be much worse off.

BW

@Jennifer:

…I know his daughter - whom he is allegedly protecting - is a devout Christian, so I fail to see how this is protecting her…

Thanks for admitting this Jennifer. I don’t think Janus gets it either. I am also a practising Christian, and I see removing the words as a protection of of my faith, not an infringement of it.

If the current majority of Christians does not enforce strict secularity on the government today, why would you expect a future majority of non-Christians NOT to force their religion down my grandchildrens’ throats?

@cystic:

"Just a quick question - Black Watch - when you suggested that Americans might have a problem with “under Allah” - did you consider that many Americans are English speaking?

I live in the Toledo area of Northwest Ohio. There is a significant (50,000+) Muslim population in this corner of America most of whom speak English. The demographics of the United States are changing, and English speaking Christians may well be in a minority in the not-to-distant future.

Allah has been adopted into the English language, with the meaning “God” in the Islam religion. I would pose to you that the use of “under God” to a Muslim is not equivalent to “under Allah”. It is far too easy when you are in the majority to see the words and symbols you use as “global” and not as “culture specific”.

You say “look aside today at the two little words in the Pledge - what difference does it make anyway?” And I will continue to maintain that it is the top of the slippery slope.

Just look where the Christian Right is driving this country today (see my earlier reference to the 11 states passing gay bashing Constitutional Amendments last fall). Look at the states that now have compulsory “intelligent design” woven into their curricula for elementary school science. The Christian Right is having a field day, converting this country into a Christian Fundamentalist theocracy.

As for “there’s a war on, why is this even being discussed?”. The “war” was over a year and a half ago. All that is going on now is an occupation of a foreign country, with attendant civil unrest. Bush’s insufferable arrogance dragged this country into that war, and now we all need to bear through it.

However, since the official rationale for being in that war has switched from fictitious WMD’s to saving the Middle East for democracy, then why wouldn’t we encourage our own citizens to exercise their own democratic rights to seek redress against government wrongdoing? Isn’t that a hallmark of the democratic process? You should be cheering this guy on as he is providing an example of what the Iraqis might one day hope to attain - the right to take their government to task over what an individual citizen sees as a government overstepping its legal authority to infringe on a private citizen’s life.

As for Hurricane Katrina - I would think this trial was well into the process BEFORE Katrina did what she did - it’s only the result and ruling that has occurred since then.

@Yanny:

Why not just eliminate the stupid addendum to the pledge? It wasn’t neccessary when it when first written. Ike just felt like slapping the word “God” on everything he could.

Works for me.

BW

@Guerrilla:

@BlackWatch:

Ah yes. The history of the United States.

Rhode Island was founded by Roger Smith …
BW

Sigh

It’s Roger Williams… And he wasn’t tossed out he ran for his life before he was “deported” to England…

The rest from my knowledge is Correct…

My apologies - I should have looked it up instead of relying on very creaky memory cells - do I get partial credit for having “Roger” correct? ;)…

@Janus1:

bullshit. this guy isnt standing up for the civil liberties of the people as a whole…
:roll:

Agreed - he isn’t standing up for the civil liberties of the people as a whole. He is standing up for MY rights as an INDIVIDUAL to worship whatever way I want, with no f***ing government telling me what to believe in or not.

@US_Constitution_1st_Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

Any subdivision of government is bound by the US Constitution, including schools. Schools which require students to recite a pledge of allegiance containing the words “under God” have made a rule which contravenes the first phrase of the First Amendment - plain and simple. If you don’t like the US Constitution, why don’t you go live somewhere where religion is enforced by the government?

@Janus1:

…liberties for everyone except the majority, cause hey, f**k them, right?

What you evidently don’t get Janus is that liberties are for individual people, more specifically they are for EVERYONE, not just for a “majority”.

You say to “lighten up??, what’s the big deal?, etc.” Well - the big deal is that if this is not stopped, then there will be prayers instituted at schools BY THE GOVERNMENT, then there will be “correct” and “legal” forms of worship, and so on. I can’t wait for the witch burnings to start again…

Go live in a dictatorship if that’s what you want - live where everyone is compelled to think alike or “face the consequences”.

@cystic:

It is all part of the cultural mind shift going on in the US that seems to be dragging us further and further away from democracy and closer to a monolithic Police State.
BW

true to a degree, however i am not sure how you can tie this in with the changing of the pledge of allegiance.

If a citizen of this country is appalled by the direction the country is taking (moving away from freedom and toward enfornced conformity) he can rail at ALL the symptoms, or he can choose his battles.

The guy who took the individual schools to court to have them “cease and desist” reciting the pledge with “under God” included (this is the government approved official version of the pledge), has chosen to fight a battle he may in fact be able to win, and I say more power to him.

That’s the connection - if you don’t take on the little ones (Pledge of Allegiance), you may not have the ability to do spit when the big ones (Guantanamo treatment of US Citizens) comes along.

If the government thinks they can take an inch, they’ll take it all.

BW

@cystic:

@BlackWatch:

The few supporters of including “under God” I have spoken to have taken great exception to the suggestion that the words be changed to “under Allah” or “under Shiva”, which tells me that they want loyalty to the country tied to a belief in a Judaeo-Christian God. The First Amendment of the Constitution provides for freedom of religion. You can’t have it both ways - freedom of religion, as long as you conform to the majority’s choice of religion - that dog just won’t hunt.
BW

1. granted that the US (and Canada) was originally populated by natives who worshipped a pantheon, the great Spirit, or nature - i’m not sure that any of these would make great substitutes to “under God”
2. most of the original settlers, founding fathers and statesmen of the US were Christian, and designed the much of their symbols around their beliefs, as well as the circumstances by which your nation was founded. Is it not somewhat revisionist to confound their original considerations of these symbols etc.?

(also granted that given time, Satanists could also well construct a craft and settle the US with Satanists and have their own symbols/pledges. Having said that, i and most other Christians would be unlikely to wish to settle at this place.)

The Founding Fathers were indeed steeped in their own cultural backgrounds and biases. Women and blacks were not “people” in their world, but were subspecies of men.

Despite these ingrained biases, they attempted to correct what they saw as great social evil, by what now seems a rather minor step of allowing “freedom of religion”, disallowing state sanctioned persecution of religious sects outside the mainstream of the general population. Judaism would have likely been at an extreme - there were many other Protestant sects which would have been found heretical by other sects and religious groups of the day. If any of those sects could gain dominance, they would have cheerfully compelled a unified religion for this country.

It is so easy, both in the US and Canada, to drive down the street through any urban community and see a diversity of churches, synagogues(mosques in NW Ohio and SE Michigan, where I live) and take for granted the freedom to practice whatever religion I want. But freedom of religion CANNOT be taken for granted - not now, not ever.

The United States has taken several tragic steps in recent years that have eroded the freedoms that have made this country the world leader that it is. Freedom is being nibbled away from the fringes:

1. Detainment without trial of the prisoners in Guantanamo. If this can be done to anyone by my government, it can be done to me.

2. Passage of State Constitutional amendments in 11 states last November of prohibitions against same sex marriage. If the majority can dictate who a person may marry, what other freedoms will they take away from me next?

3. Passage of the Patriot Act - police state here we come. Virtually uncontestable wire taps and searches are the new order of the day.

It is all part of the cultural mind shift going on in the US that seems to be dragging us further and further away from democracy and closer to a monolithic Police State.

BW

@cystic:

Having said that, i think people need to look to their nations’ history and religious/cultural background. Whether people like to acknowledge it or not, N. Americans are primarily English speaking, generally Christian, democratic, with a capitalistic bent with some social values. The idea of working actively against these is IMO a little silly.

Ah yes. The history of the United States.

Rhode Island was founded by Roger Smith and other individuals who had been tossed out of the Massachussetts Bay colony because their religious beliefs did not coincide with those of the dominant majority in Massachussetts. Oh, and did I mention this happened in the middle of a New England winter?

Rhode Island was thus a little touchy on the subject of freedom of religion when it came time to ratify the US Constitution, and they refused to sign until and unless the Bill of Rights was approved at the same time, including freedom to practice whatever religion any citizen wanted.

Rhode Island is home to the oldest synagogue in North America.

This history of tendency of religious persecution by majorities is what is behind the push by many in the US (me included) to exclude ANY religion from government. Only if government is totally secular can all citizens be free to practice their own religious beliefs without fear of persecution by the state.

I have no problem with children in schools being socialised to say the Pledge of Allegiance - I object vehemently to “under God” being included in the pledge.

The few supporters of including “under God” I have spoken to have taken great exception to the suggestion that the words be changed to “under Allah” or “under Shiva”, which tells me that they want loyalty to the country tied to a belief in a Judaeo-Christian God. The First Amendment of the Constitution provides for freedom of religion. You can’t have it both ways - freedom of religion, as long as you conform to the majority’s choice of religion - that dog just won’t hunt.

BW

@cystic:

I don’t know much about that other story, but i have to admit that when i worked for Wal-Mart, they were about as reasonable a company as their managers were. Now granted this is in Canada - a country with pretty strict workplace codes. At the same time, when i requested a few (6) shifts off to prepare for exams and finish my honor’s thesis they denied me, so i quit outright.

There is a lawsuit in Quebec currently (the most sociallistic province). In the Saguenay region a group of Wal-Mart employees tried to unionize and succeeded. The company promptly shut the store downThe workers are now suing Wal-Mart over this particular action.

IMO - this is ridiculous. Granted i think that unions in Canada have too much power as it is, but forcing a store to unionize is absurd. If i set up a store, i should have the right to open/close it where i wish. If i find that i can not support/maintain a given workplace, then i should have the right to close. If i don’t want certain headaches (i.e. threatened union action) then i should be able to close a store to avoid it.
True this seems a bit dramatic, but not much more so than a strike.

This is the first time I’ve heard of a Walmart closing its doors to avoid having to deal with unions. I hope the Quebec worker succeed in their suit - Walmart is clearly adopting unfair labor practices if they go to this extreme to avoid having to deal with a union.

In the same manner that Walmart can use its mass purchasing power to keep its cost of good sold as low as possible, workers are allowed by law to form unions to bargain en masse for their wages and benefits. If they cannot bargain collectively, there is NEVER an incentive for Walmart to pay them a living wage.

It may not even be such a big deal in Canada whether Walmart is unionized or not - all citizens are entitled to basic health care regardless of who their employer is. What I think Walmart is terrified of is having to pay medical costs for ALL its employees in the US if the unions ever get a foothold. Currently about half of Walmarts have no medical insurance whatsoever - if they get sick, well - too bad.

BW

I went back and checked my simulator again with 6 inf, 5 arm, 5 ftr, bmr v 13 inf, 2 arm, ftr, AA.

I ran 1,000 simulations twice, and one time came up with taken by arm, 2 ftr, bmr, the other taken by arm, 3 ftr, bmr. It doesn’t get any closer than that to dead center results. In each case the three likeliest results were; taken by arm, bmr and 2,3 or 4 ftr.

On top of which, it was 70% to win each time. Obviously if the early rolls started downhill, Germany could still retreat to EEu, salvaging a game of it.

SHP, I’ve seen you advocate a smaller version of this odds battle (5 inf, arm v 3 inf, ftr Manchuria) for Russia 1. Japan sets this “bait” with a non-bid of units in Manchuria, but only in bid games. You set it deliberately through your purchase and move decisions - I would say at this point you need to suck it up and admit you made a bad decision and bad assessment of your opponent’s risk tolerance levels. (P.S. I also agree with you that the game is not over for the Allies - they still have a viable game, which proves the “depth” the Allies have with respect to moves or rolls gone bad - if this battle had gone badly for the Axis, rather than dead center, the Axis was probably done for, barring very cheap, very early major techs)

Also - you totally misread my game style. I prefer to win a game in the opening two to three rounds of play. I will take on select 50-50 battles in those rounds if I see an opportunity to gain a significant lead. Sometimes it then takes a long time for my opponents to concede (but that is entirely up to them - I never ask for a concession).

BW

@Mr.:

@DarthMaximus:

I was totally expecting a full strafe on Ukr with retreat to Kar

What’s better with a no PE bid…STRONG ATTACK AND TAKE of Ukr…or STRONG STRAFE of Ukr…or a LIGHT/MEDIUM STRAFE/TAKE of Ukr???

Against an mt Euro bid (PA or mixed Africa/Asia), I’ll be going heavy into Ukraine every time 8 inf, 3 arm. trn, 2 ftr v baltic and sub v sub Wsp.

SHP will say that Germany’s response to a heavy take of Ukraine is a strafe to clear all but one armor - however the problem with that is that Germany cannot control the dice (in an ADS game, not the low luck roller), and Germany can easily “overtake” ukraine, meaning that all those yummy gray tanks are toast on Rus 2.

My odds calculator showed DM’s attack on kar to win with bmr, 3 ftr, so the “rolling up” by one unit is hardly way out of line. Egypt is another slight “roll up” but that’s the whole point of a dice game - dead center results don’t always happen, and if you don’t want someone to ‘take the bait’ don’t offer it.

DM - I have three games going right now - when I clear one, I’ll be happy to play a game. I do think you would find that MOST players in the clubs also enjoy the game far more than the points, but the points just give a way of tallying it all up. What can be even more fun is getting involved in various team games or tourneys.

BW

SHP, you played Rus 1 much differently than I would have against a 4 inf Lib, 3 inf Man bid. I’m really not sure why you went so lightly against Ukraine, but I’m sure you had your reasons.

It does seem that you set Karelia as bait, especially since you shifted Eve etc to the east.

DM took the bait, and rolled up slightly both in Kar and in Egypt.

I guess I don’t see why you would quit the game because he has done so.

It may not be the object lesson you had originally planned, but it could be a lesson anyway for DM and the others listening in.

BW

My odds calculator has the Yak battle at 92% to win for Japan with the “most likely” result as taken with inf, 3 ftr bmr if you send everything (6 inf, 3 ftr, bmr v 7 inf, arm). Taking 1 ftr away drops the odds to 75% in Yak, which is lower than I would want for a “must win” battle. It gets much worse if the Indian ftr is moved there on UK1.

In addition the probability of winning with 4 inf, ftr v 2 inf, ftr in China is 70%, meaning your overall plan has a probability of success of .7 x .75 = .53, or about a 50-50 shot. If you throw in a 2 inf v 1 inf amphib of India, the overall success rate probability will drop well below 50%.

I try to play the first round relatively conservatively with either side to try to ensure Dicey doesn’t get a chance to give the game away before it even starts. I think SHP advocates a more aggressive style of play, but each person needs to find his own “comfort level”.

@DarthMaximus:

Yeah.

I was going to take Yak, bigtime.

If his UK ftr landed there, I’d brought in all my planes and would have sacked 1 to take it.

If his ftr went to counter Egy, I would’ve looked at taking China as well with my 3rd ftr.

I would have had to roll them out on my roller, but if I recall I think it was doable to take both.

I also my have dropped off troops in India as well from the Phil.

I was going to go IC and tran for Man. And yes I was going for an all out blitz of Russia.

It would have been a boring game for me as the Germans after rd 3 or 4 if I didn’t take Moscow, but he left the door open and I took it.

I would’ve done Pearl lite as well, as all my fighting force would be needed in Asia ASAP. He could counter an empty HI sz if he liked.

I didn’t know he’d quit if I took Kar. I guess I wasn’t fully aware of the guidelines we were playing under.

I could not sort out from the long string of posts - are you using a fully random roller or are you fudging it with a low luck or no luck roller? My comments were based on using fully random roller results. Call it a bias if you will, but I think that’s the way the game should be played… :)

BW

@DarthMaximus:

As it is I don’t think this game is going to get beyond G1.

I just want to know if it was a horrible horrible move, or would players in clubs for rankings/points take a shot.

J1 - mostly likely would hit Chi or Yak or both, esp if the UK ftr went to Egy.

Also a J1 assualt on Moscow would be on the table to kill the 2 UK ftrs that may land there.

50% chance I lose 1 to aa fire. But I’d still sack 2 more to clear the ftrs.

That would leave Germany with 2 inf, 3 ftrs, 1 bom vs. (Rus inf), 1 US bom.

He would have to place at least 4-5 Russian inf to be safe. Otherwise I may try for the rd 2 kill.

OK, if the game is dead in the water at this point, I’ll throw my 2 cents in.

By going all out v Kar on G1, you’ve committed to an all out attempt to crush the Russians early. On J1, the only attacks I’d be considering would be a walkin to SFE, a light Pearl (sub, BB, 2 ftr) and an all out crunch on the Yak stack (6 inf, 3 ftr, bmr v 7 inf, arm (+UK ftr??)), if needed taking a ftr as a loss to actually take Yak. I’d also be building an IC in Manchuria and 1 transport.

The US ftr in China lives, but the two inf there have nowhere to go, only the two in Sin will be able to help the Russians out.

On a more generic note, I’ve most often found that a near even G1 attack on Kar is a bad bet for the Axis, especially if you leave the Allied Atlantic boats untouched. If the Allies don’t have to spend at least SOME money on capital ships, they already have too big a lead in income for the Axis to catch up. The UK, in your game, is in play on UK 2 with a full fleet of transports and almost a full load of guys to put on them (5 trns, 2 BB’s, 5 inf, 2 arm) - that’s just too much for the Axis to overcome, even if you take Kar.

BW

@DarthMaximus:

This is in reference to my game with SHP (see game section).

I would like to know if anyone else would take a shot at a quick win (or loss)? Esp those that play in the clubs like BW or OpTorch.

I would prefer to chime in about Rus 1/G1 after Rus 2 is played. I don’t know what the plan was for Japan when you undertook the assault on Kar yet, so let’s see what both teams do for the first round??

One comment I will make - as Allies I feel MUCH better if both UK BB’s survive round 1. UK Can buy 3 trn, 4 inf, or 1 BB, 2 inf (it’s the only time I’d ever buy a BB).

BW