>> ^Asmo:

>> ^Duckman33:
Let's not stick our nose into yet another country's business please.

Lemme see, were those M1 Abram's tanks rolling down the streets of Cairo?
Bit late imo...


They co-produced those with us, so they aren't "ours" really. Even if they were, they also have Nike's, which also doesn't matter.

>> ^Duckman33:

Let's not stick our nose into yet another country's business please.


Lemme see, were those M1 Abram's tanks rolling down the streets of Cairo?

Bit late imo...

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

Stay tuned for his next video: "How to hot-wire an M1 Abrams."

Excellent.

I got goose bumps when the foreboding book closed.

I do want to bring something up here though. You don't lock and load an M1 Garand except once. When you load a magazine into the weapon the top round will chamber. So when the other soldier ratchets the bolt, he would be wasting the top round. I know that filmmakers do this for the effect, but to stay true to period this is a useless gesture.

Also the sound effects for the lock and load are to clean and crisp. Just listen to the video below.

Woot! Time for some math!


I counted 5, 45 pound weights on the left side of that bar. So all together there are 10 45 pound weights.

That's 445 pounds, and now add the weight of the standard Olympic bar; 44.1.

In social circles the general weight for the bar is taken as 45 pounds. I know that it should be rounded down by rule of mathematics but it is not.

In social circles:
45 * 11 ~ 495

For those of us who do not give that much inaccuracy:
(45 * 10) + 44.1 = 494.1

ok, i hope i can piss everyone off quick here, but TIPS are a rip off, they have nothing to do with inflation. period.

http://www.shadowstats.com/inflation_calculator?amount1=100&y1=2008&m1=8&y2=2009&m2=8&calc=Find+Out

Let's be straight here, I am accusing the government of cooking the books. Anyone who believes government inflation data (the video included) is a... (insert your insult here)

So basically we have the shadow statistics site saying inflation is real, and we have the TIPS value, which says it isn't.

I'm watching the video again, the dude never explains why the difference is expectation of inflation, just that it is. No doubt he'd give some circular logic explanation anyhow. ... Ok he explains, its the "market" that moves these things. Never mind that the FED is buying these things, and the FED isn't a market, it can move the treasuries however it likes.

Anyhow i won't downvote even though it is crap, after all i'm just a layman.

Actually, yes, the whole "Green Agenda" is based on profit!

We know the planet is warming to a degree. We don't know what's causing it. There is no proof whether man is to blame or whether it is part of a natural cycle. We only have records that date back since 1895. A very short period of time as far as history goes.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/temperature-history/

Don't get me wrong here though. Yes we all think the planet needs more respect. That's just fact. And there are a lot of people who dedicate their lives/careers to the greater good of preserving the planet.

But at the same time, What an incredible profit creating machine. Corporations and interest groups will use anything they can to generate profits. Fear has always been the best way to control a population. So it makes sense that these two should go hand in hand. See an opportunity and use it!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=profit+green&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g-m1

Even government is using it as an excuse to raise taxes. Both on goods and for big business.
http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2008/07/26/bc-carbon-tax-backlash-how-real/

So yes, cause fear and people buy in - literally - like it or not! Like I said, it feeds the machine.



>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
FEAR FEAR, PANIC! BUY BUY BUY! CONSUME GREEN PRODUCTS, BUY BUY BUY! FEAR FEAR!

^Far be it from me to change your mind (or care to), but in terms of philosophy, perception, for all intents and purposes, "is" "reality."

I don't want to get all mushy here, but gaming has really reached a new level.

This is equivalent to soldiers faking the pinging sound the M1 Garand makes when its out of ammo in order to draw out their enemy.

Okay. First, I'll point out that you still don't have any sources that repeat your own claim that the Democratic-Republican party simply disappeared into thin air, and that there was a clear and clean break between that party and the Democratic Party.

Second, you either didn't understand my explanation of why the Republican party would be different, or well, I guess there is no other real explanation, because you laid out a straw man instead of responding to what I actually said.

Third, your fixation with the logo is unhealthy. Seriously, if we change the logo now to a Fox to mock Fox News, does that mean Bill O'Reilly founded the Democratic party? I'm not being entirely facetious -- if the Democratic-Republican party didn't have a logo before, but during the Jackson presidency they adopted it to spite the people calling him Jackass, does that make him the founder of the Democratic-Republican party? I think it makes him a Jackass, but that's not what we're talking about.

But really, this all comes down to #1. You said the answers.com page was accurate. Here's some of what you deemed accurate:

Encyclopedia Britannica:

In the 1790s a group of Thomas Jefferson's supporters called themselves "Democratic Republicans" or "Jeffersonian Republicans" to demonstrate their belief in the principle of popular government and their opposition to monarchism. The party adopted its present name in the 1830s, during the presidency of Andrew Jackson.

So, one party, that changed its name.

US History Encylcopedia:

By the end of Madison's presidency and throughout Monroe's two terms, known as the "Era of Good Feeling," the Democratic Republican Party largely abandoned its minimalism and supported tariff, banking, and improvements policies originally supported by its Federalist opponents.

After the retirement of James Monroe, the newly renamed "Democratic" Party came to rally around the candidacy of Andrew Jackson. Jackson steered the party back toward its minimalist origins.

The Law Encyclopedia entry starts with:

The modern Democratic party is the descendant of the Democratic-Republican party, an early-nineteenth-century political organization led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Also known as the Jeffersonians, the Democratic-Republican party began as an antifederalist group, opposed to strong, centralized government. The party was officially established at a national nominating convention in 1832. It dropped the Republican portion of its name in 1840.

They don't all agree about the exact timing of the change, but they say it was a change in name, not a newly founded party.

In the course of searching again today, I found a couple original-source documents:

Thomas Jefferson Randolph (Thomas Jefferson's grandson) said at the 1872 Democratic convention that he'd spent 80 years of his life in the Democratic-Republican party (source), and Inquiry Into the Origin and Course of Political Parties in the United States By Martin Van Buren, where he discusses the topic at excruciating length, but frequently talks about the roots of the Democratic party beginning with Jefferson.

Look, you're just wrong. You can disagree with the history as it's written, but that makes you, not me, the revisionist.

It's okay. I don't blame you for being mad. You don't like the thought that Thomas Jefferson and William Jefferson Clinton were both from the same party. Here's a thought, maybe we should change the logo to a brunette sucking cock, to commemorate the founding of Limbaugh's Clinton's Democrat (as opposed to Democratic) party. The logo change, that's really all it takes to found a new party.

Someone call Hillary and let her know she won the nomination at the Democrat National Convention, where only Michigan and Florida count. Best not show her the new logo though.

bwahahaha. Been playing this game a lot lately. I'm nearing that magical 65! Then I can try out the M1A1 Carbine to see how well that does. Also gave the M1 Garand w/ the Sniper Scope a test drive last night. Sucker is nasty as an alternative to bolt-action rifles. Anyways...

>> ^legacy0100:
Copycats!
The leveling system was originally a concept from RTCW: Enemy Territory. (no! Team Fortress 2 wasn't the first!)
It's because Grey matter (developers of Return to Castle Wolfenstein, plus the Enemy Territory) was merged into Treyarch, who have developed CoD 5.
No, not Quake wars Enemy Territory, The Wolfenstein Enemy Territory.
Only if it had better graphics

But the "leveling" system was in CoD4, which was developed by Infinity Wards, not Treyarch. Treyarch took the same engine from CoD4 and improved upon it (if there is such a thing). So while leveling up isn't anything new (it's still like ranks, only done differently), it's still part of how the game plays on multi-player.

Ricardo explain why it is that way in is chapter on Machinery ch.XXXI
http://books.google.fr/books?id=iUUJAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=david+ricardo&lr=#PPA466,M1