Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
It's hilarious when tornado season comes around and 'America's Funniest Tornadoes' is on Fox8.
People are like dice, a certain Frenchman said that. You throw yourself in the direction of your own choosing. People are free because they can do that. Everyone's circumstances are different, but no matter how small the choice, at the very least, you can throw yourself. It's not chance or fate. It's the choice you made.
warpcrafter wrote:Kansas isn't important enough to bomb. No potential for massive media exploitation. Besides, they'd have to get through the millions of crazy rednecks first.
A lot of food is grown in Kansas. Humans need food to survive. Removing a large source of food may be problematic to the people that rely on it.
It's good to know that somebody thinks us hicks in the great unwashed land between New York and Los Angeles are good for something.
Only a few of you. Though honestly, thats true everywhere.
He's just trying to drag Muslims out of the middle ages. Somebody has to do it.
You're probably not one of those people though, judging from this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/06/23 06:07:36
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
Have you ever known one who has worn a burka? I'll you what, an Iranian immigrant hated the darned things because they couldn't really see. It cuts off peripheral vision and is dangerous.
Yeah, those look really hard to see out of.
I do believe that those are head scarves, not burkas.
So you honestly believe that I don't know the differences between muslims and extremists? Its simple, extremists kill and most muslims don't. Its when it comes to religion that it gets messed up for me. I think its Shiite that believe that the muslim leader should be a descendent of muhammad and sunni believe that it can be anyone of the faith. A palestinian told me that. He married his second cousin and doesn't want her to wear burkas, we exchange gifts every now and then. I know a police chief in Iraq who was grazed on the neck by .45 calibur round from an extremist. I also know a christian in lebanon who wants to move to america because christians aren't very popular in lebanon. There's an arab guy who own the quiznos near my house, he and his family run the place and are really nice people.
But not all people who make their wives wear burkas are extremists, they could just be a-holes, they come in many varieties including american.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youngblood wrote:Intolerance is awfully subjective too.
Everyone's intolerant of something. Americans don't like eating dogs, Indians don't like eating cows, etc.
That's not intolerance.
Intolerance is when you try to stop everyone else from eating dogs or cows because you personally don't like it.
Gobbla wrote:California produces 3 times more food than Kansas.
It isn't just what is produced, but the types produced. Nuke Kansas and bread will become expensive. Nuke California and there will be no more Coppola Pinot Noir!
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Ahtman wrote:A lot of food is grown in Kansas. Humans need food to survive. Removing a large source of food may be problematic to the people that rely on it.
The US produces vastly more food than it needs. In order to have the piles and piles of fresh fruit in the grocery store we accept waste levels of around 50%.
There would be short term supply shocks as the normal supply chains are broken, but the overall supply of food would never drop below the level needed to feed the US. It'd be no different to knocking out key road and rail junctions, except that bombing key road and rail junctions is a lot easier than destroying the countless acres of farmland across Kansas.
And in terms of killing people, neither destroying farmland or transport infrastructure is ever going to kill as many people as blowing up cities. I think Kansas is pretty safe.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
There was controversy here in aAustralia a few months ago as a radio commentator said that when driving and when entering stores/banks the burkka should be removed, because driving their vision would be obstructed and stores/banks because you have to remove enclosing helmets and headgear.
Seems fair enough to me but the inner city lefties threw a fit.
2025: Games Played:8/Models Bought:167/Sold:169/Painted:140
2024: Games Played:8/Models Bought:393/Sold:519/Painted: 207
2023: Games Played:0/Models Bought:287/Sold:0/Painted: 203
2020-2022: Games Played:42/Models Bought:1271/Sold:631/Painted:442
2016-19: Games Played:369/Models Bought:772/Sold:378/ Painted:268
2012-15: Games Played:412/Models Bought: 1163/Sold:730/Painted:436
French president Nikolas Sarkozy has said he wants to ban burkhas from France. One muslim woman said she would "fight to overturn any ban".
The French government has subsequently surrendered.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
Zut Alor! French talking about women...strange...Aren't they famous for having the most mistresses and such?
Anyway, the burka is perfectly fine. It is kind of like high heels or a bra. But unlike many fashion things, the burka can be very important to people. What is the french leader (who I honestly have little respect for) saying? Is it a threat to society? No. Is it chauvinist, and immoral. Not compared to a french man screwing 5 different women.
Messing and oppressing a peoples religeon is a dangerous bussiness. I am not for it. I spent several years in dubai, and while it was not compulsory, arab girls often felt very insecure about not wearing them in public. Let them wear the damn things, fool!
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Zut Alor! French talking about women...strange...Aren't they famous for having the most mistresses and such?
Anyway, the burka is perfectly fine. It is kind of like high heels or a bra. But unlike many fashion things, the burka can be very important to people. What is the french leader (who I honestly have little respect for) saying? Is it a threat to society? No. Is it chauvinist, and immoral. Not compared to a french man screwing 5 different women.
Messing and oppressing a peoples religeon is a dangerous bussiness. I am not for it. I spent several years in dubai, and while it was not compulsory, arab girls often felt very insecure about not wearing them in public. Let them wear the damn things, fool!
You do know of course that women in Afghanistan are forced to wear the burka, whereas French women have affairs with men because they enjoy them.
The weakness in Sarkozy's position was that he has no grounds for banning a particular style of clothing except on the basis of eliminating religious symbols from secular society, but he said himself that the burka isn't religious. (It isn't religious, it's cultural.)
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:There was controversy here in aAustralia a few months ago as a radio commentator said that when driving and when entering stores/banks the burkka should be removed, because driving their vision would be obstructed and stores/banks because you have to remove enclosing helmets and headgear.
Seems fair enough to me but the inner city lefties threw a fit.
No-one has ever robbed a bank dressed in a burqa. It's hardly practical, and even with the 80 year old eyes of the security guard will be able to tell if it's a bikie under there.
And if you ban the women wearing burqas in banks it won't mean they'll stop wearing them, it means they'll stop going to banks. And then you remember that the host of the show wasn't just talking about banks, he was talking about shopping centres. So now you're talking about removing a number of people from society because of an impractical crime no-one has ever attempted to commit.
So you'd have a number of citizens who can't go into important public venues any more, and all because of a crime no-one has ever committed, that wouldn't be at all practical.
And then you think about the fact that no-ones called for banning hooded jackets or nun outfits.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
So....to save women, and liberate them...we're to make them stay at home!
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Actually in some banks you can't wear sunglasses, hooded jackets with the hood up, or ski masks. Anything that can potentially hide your identity is banned.
Nun outfits look funny and don't obscure the face. Now, if their outfit somehow clashed with a law then I would say that the nun couldn't wear that outfit.
But yes, reds8n, we must make them stay at home.
@ kilkrazy its intolerant as its illegal to eat beef in india and its animal cruelty to eat a dog in america.
Australia also intolerant of violence as they banned whole games or only certain parts of certain games.
I wouldn't like to be the bank manager who has to enforce a rule that muslim women can't come in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Actually in some banks you can't wear sunglasses, hooded jackets with the hood up, or ski masks. Anything that can potentially hide your identity is banned.
Nun outfits look funny and don't obscure the face. Now, if their outfit somehow clashed with a law then I would say that the nun couldn't wear that outfit.
But yes, reds8n, we must make them stay at home.
@ kilkrazy its intolerant as its illegal to eat beef in india and its animal cruelty to eat a dog in america.
Australia also intolerant of violence as they banned whole games or only certain parts of certain games.
I did a quick bit of research. Apparently there are some states in India which have banned beef eating and not others.
The situation is similar to the ban in many muslim countries on consumption of alcohol, i.e. it is a dietary restriction on religious grounds. I don't know if it really counts as intolerance if it has the broad support of the public. They don't seek to prevent people in Europe from eating beef.
Banning the eating of dogs because it is animal cruelty is a slightly different case. Presumably if the dog were humanely slaughtered according to the law on preparation of meat, it would not be animal cruelty. Of course, there may be a list of animals which it is legal to slaughter and dogs may not be on this list.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/06/23 17:06:13
halonachos wrote:Actually in some banks you can't wear sunglasses, hooded jackets with the hood up, or ski masks. Anything that can potentially hide your identity is banned.
Nun outfits look funny and don't obscure the face. Now, if their outfit somehow clashed with a law then I would say that the nun couldn't wear that outfit.
But yes, reds8n, we must make them stay at home.
That's right, according to the original argument they wouldn't be able to go to shopping centres or banks, which is a lot of public life. The reason for doing this is because another person might dress up in a burqa and try a robbery. Which is something no-one has ever attempted... have you actually seen a burqa? While fully covering, it would be obvious if underneath was a guy trying to conceal his identity, it wouldn't be practical to conceal a weapon, running around would be much harder and you'd lose peripheral vision. It's a terrible idea for a robbery.
So here you have people honestly arguing to seriously restrict the ability of certain people to move through society, to prevent an impractical crime that no-one has never happened.
@ kilkrazy its intolerant as its illegal to eat beef in india and its animal cruelty to eat a dog in america.
I was in India just a couple of months ago and I can tell you this isn't true. It's illegal to slaughter the cows wandering the streets. Beef is prohibited in some places but India is not zealous in enforcing its laws - even in the heart of Dehli you can get beef if you want to go to the Tibetan quarter.
Australia also intolerant of violence as they banned whole games or only certain parts of certain games.
Sorry man, no idea what you're trying to say here.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Yes, I've seen a burqa and I've seen a burqa clad woman show up in my elementary school(recent immigrants and her daughter was in my class) and I will tell you that it was very unnerving.
Another thing is this, it is impossible to tell who is underneath a burqa as their purpose is to obscure the shape of the person within, so men can wear a burqa to flee after committing a crime(some taliban men wear them after attacking troops/police and drop their weapons).
Here's the thing, if you move to a foreign country you should adapt to their culture. When in public you should act like the adopting country. In your own home you can practice your older culture.
The main issue I belive is the obscuring of faces and the obscuring of body shape/possibility of hiding objects higher than normal clothing. I do not believe that they would have this issue if headscarves were worn. As to the fact that it obscures sight and would be terrible in a robbery, I ask you to look up obscure attempts at bank robbery.
This is not a new argument. This has been going on since the late '80s.
I say, let them wear what they want. I want to see their face, however. It's dangerous to have people walking around who could probably sue the life out of you for 'Obstructing their religion' if you ask them to take them off, to, say, enter a bank. What if they were caught in a crime? (This is purely theoretical, I highly doubt you'd go into a bank robbery in a baby blue robe that covers all of your body and restricts movement so far as scratching your genitals.)
I remember the case where the BA Flight Assistant was banned from wearing her small, highly personal, concealed Catholic Cross to work, but her colleague wearing a headscarf on religious grounds got off scot free.
Oh well.
Anyway, Chirac (the dirty old bugger) decreed that any religiously outward symbols of faith were banned in schools, e.g. Kippahs, Headscarfs, and Large Crosses. Is this not simply a step on the same roaD?
"And what is wrong with their life? What on earth is less reprehensible than the life of the Levovs?"
- American Pastoral, Philip Roth
Oh, Death was never enemy of ours!
We laughed at him, we leagued with him, old chum.
No soldier's paid to kick against His powers.
We laughed - knowing that better men would come,
And greater wars: when each proud fighter brags
He wars on Death, for lives; not men, for flags.
smiling Assassin wrote:This is not a new argument. This has been going on since the late '80s.
I say, let them wear what they want. I want to see their face, however. It's dangerous to have people walking around who could probably sue the life out of you for 'Obstructing their religion' if you ask them to take them off, to, say, enter a bank. What if they were caught in a crime? (This is purely theoretical, I highly doubt you'd go into a bank robbery in a baby blue robe that covers all of your body and restricts movement so far as scratching your genitals.)
I remember the case where the BA Flight Assistant was banned from wearing her small, highly personal, concealed Catholic Cross to work, but her colleague wearing a headscarf on religious grounds got off scot free.
Oh well.
Anyway, Chirac (the dirty old bugger) decreed that any religiously outward symbols of faith were banned in schools, e.g. Kippahs, Headscarfs, and Large Crosses. Is this not simply a step on the same roaD?
sA
Sarkozy himself said the Burka is not a religious clothing. He wants to ban it on vague grounds of it being anti-social or un-French.
I have doubts about the banning of any religious or associated apparel. If there isn't a genuine public safety issue, such as the point about bank robbers hiding in burkas, it just looks like anti-whatever-religionism.
France has a policy of assimilation. There is a strong current of French who believe assimilation is not working. Riots, crime, and firebombings exasperate this. It is esepocially an issue as the Republic was founded on secularism, and France has its own long history with Islamic countries that hasn't been the most positive (for either side).
Thats France's deal. If they want to do that they can do that, just like the UK can be the opposite, or Saudi Arabia can enforce their own clothing restrictions.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
This whole idea is stupid. The moment they made it illegal to wear a Burka, you immediately make 1,000's of people criminals. The burka weaers would continue to wear the burkas anyway out of protest and then if the police actually arrested or gave citations, there would be an uproar from society about the police taking away burka wearers civil rights to wear burkas.
France has a policy of assimilation. There is a strong current of French who believe assimilation is not working. Riots, crime, and firebombings exasperate this. It is esepocially an issue as the Republic was founded on secularism, and France has its own long history with Islamic countries that hasn't been the most positive (for either side).
Hmm... never spent much time in France have you I'm guessing ?
The official policy has indeed been one of some vague form of assimilation. The reality is that most of the immigrants are pushed out into gakky suburbs and left to their own devices. You've got to remember that is was ( might still be..I'm not sure ) illegal to collect and store racial data without the express permission of the subject.
When they had their first non white TV newsreader -- in 2006 !-- it was genuinely a notable event and bumped up the advertising rates for shows around that slot.
.. you can see why I never kept that job in sales eh ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Oh I'm aware Redy. I'm just stating what their official policy was.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Ahtman wrote:A lot of food is grown in Kansas. Humans need food to survive. Removing a large source of food may be problematic to the people that rely on it.
The US produces vastly more food than it needs. In order to have the piles and piles of fresh fruit in the grocery store we accept waste levels of around 50%.
There would be short term supply shocks as the normal supply chains are broken, but the overall supply of food would never drop below the level needed to feed the US. It'd be no different to knocking out key road and rail junctions, except that bombing key road and rail junctions is a lot easier than destroying the countless acres of farmland across Kansas.
And in terms of killing people, neither destroying farmland or transport infrastructure is ever going to kill as many people as blowing up cities. I think Kansas is pretty safe.
Well duh, but than I never said that it was the best way to kill the most people now did I? Not every tactic is designed to kill the most people. Destroy one of the largest producers of grain that is used to supply more than just the US and it will cause problems. It would also make that area unable to produce grain for a long, long time.
Somewhere along the line you seem to have decided to add "will kill the most people" and "is absolutely the best idea" to what I posted, of which I posted neither, so if you could respond to what I actually posted and not what you seem to think I posted that would be great.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
