Gay people are not asking to push their way of thinking on the American culture. They just want equal rights and freedom from oppression, just like everyone else does. Besides, they are a part of American culture (and part of all other cultures, too).

They most certainly are pushing their way of thinking on America, and that in every aspect of life. In California young children must now learn about gay history:

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/22/138504488/california-brings-gay-history-into-the-classroom

The normalization of homosexuality is also leading to the normalization of transgenders. There is now a law in California which states that transgenders have a protected right of gender expression which means they have to be allowed to cross dress at work:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/10/california-transgender-laws_n_1004109.html

Which leads to this:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=348033

Before you say it has nothing to do with gay rights, these were the sponsors:

The bill was authored by Assemblymember Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and sponsored by Equality California, Transgender Law Center and Gay-Straight Alliance Network.

Here is the bill California vetoed but it shows the agenda:

Brown vetoed the Survey Data Inclusion Act, which required the state to include questions about LGBT identities, including sexual orientation and domestic partnership status among others, on state surveys.

The truth is, gays are pushing their lifestyle on this culture, and trying to gain a protected minority status. They won't stop until they are fully integrated into every aspect of our culture, including indoctrinating our children.

Your slippery-slope argument about homosexuality leading to "other kinds of deviant sexuality" is entirely unfounded and logically fallacious. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean things like fetishes and BDSM, then that's patently false, as plenty of kinky sex goes on in heterosexual relationships too, and if it were true, it would mean that all or most gays and lesbians would be into whips and chains, which they aren't. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean "child abuse", then you are conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, and you need to stop doing that now, because you know there is no causal relationship there.

I just demonstrated the causal relationship by my example. There are also many studies which state there is a connection:

From the Archives of Sexual Behavior:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archives_of_Sexual_Behavior

A study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 'eighty-six percent of [sexual] offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.'

The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2.4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles

"Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality ... Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%."

A study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that '... the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men ... the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality

You claim you care about homosexuals. Well, I don't see it. Condemnation masquerading as love isn't caring, it's just the usual passive-aggressive Christian bullshit. Someone who cares about homosexuals would want to allow them to marry, to adopt children, and to live their lives without being bullied and persecuted.

To advocate for that would be to encourage homosexuals to continue breaking Gods law and end up in hell. I don't want homosexuals to go to hell, therefore I will continue to tell them it is immoral and that they need to repent.

Christians do not have a monopoly on morality; in fact, the Christian adherence to the bronze-age concept of sin and their preoccupation with what other people do in bed is positively immoral.

God decides what is moral, and it is the preoccuption of Christians to obey God and warn those who are perishing.

Who cares if something is against the "law" of some god or other? I don't believe in your god, and it probably doesn't even exist, so why should I care what people say it likes and dislikes? And why should religious people get special dispensation for their acts of hatred and bullying because you claim it is mandated by a magic invisible man who lives in the sky?

Regardless of whether you believe in God or not, you are still accountable to Him. And even if I wasn't Christian, I still have a right to say homosexuality is immoral. That is my right and is guaranteed by the constitution, just as it is your right to say what you like about my religion. You would like to have it one way and stifle my right to free speech, which is ironic considering the position you're taking about equal rights.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Gay people are not asking to push their way of thinking on the American culture. They just want equal rights and freedom from oppression, just like everyone else does. Besides, they are a part of American culture (and part of all other cultures, too).
Your slippery-slope argument about homosexuality leading to "other kinds of deviant sexuality" is entirely unfounded and logically fallacious. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean things like fetishes and BDSM, then that's patently false, as plenty of kinky sex goes on in heterosexual relationships too, and if it were true, it would mean that all or most gays and lesbians would be into whips and chains, which they aren't. If by "deviant sexuality" you mean "child abuse", then you are conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, and you need to stop doing that now, because you know there is no causal relationship there.
You claim you care about homosexuals. Well, I don't see it. Condemnation masquerading as love isn't caring, it's just the usual passive-aggressive Christian bullshit. Someone who cares about homosexuals would want to allow them to marry, to adopt children, and to live their lives without being bullied and persecuted. Christians do not have a monopoly on morality; in fact, the Christian adherence to the bronze-age concept of sin and their preoccupation with what other people do in bed is positively immoral. Who cares if something is against the "law" of some god or other? I don't believe in your god, and it probably doesn't even exist, so why should I care what people say it likes and dislikes? And why should religious people get special dispensation for their acts of hatred and bullying because you claim it is mandated by a magic invisible man who lives in the sky?
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm not saying that homosexuals are the same as paedophiles. I am saying that the normalization of homosexuality into a culture is a logical pathway to the normalization of pederasty in a culture, which we have a historical example of in the greeks. I am also saying that it is deviant sexual behavior which opens the door to other kinds of deviant sexual behavior, and that in itself is eroding the moral fabric of this country.
It is exactly because I care about homosexuals that I will openly say it is immoral, and against Gods law. It would in fact be a sin if I didn't say it. Any law which restricts my, or anyone elses ability to say it is unconstitutional. The absurdity is inherent in the ultra politically correct environments this kind of thing always leads to, as marbles posted about.
There is nothing hateful in stating the truth. If homosexuals have the right to trumpet their way of thinking and push it on the American culture, I have the equal right to say it is wrong and something that should be avoided at all costs. It's always interesting that a moral relativist always allows for every kind of moral position except for the kind that takes an absolute position.
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
How hypocritical of @shinyblurry to accuse someone else of having a "heart filled with poison". The ridiculous, hateful and archaic dogma of sin and judgement that you subscribe to is an immoral poison to the modern world, giving rise to absurd and damaging situations like the religious exception to this law.
Equating homosexuals with paedophiles is a cowardly trick of misdirection and a false analogy. They are not the same, and you know it - a consenting homosexual couple harms no-one at all, whereas a paedophile who molests a child causing emotional damage that ripples out into the child's later life and relationships. Your argument is empty.

@BoneRemake

I totally agree with that, why not let kids see how their thoughtless actions can be mean. BUT, this channel essentially (if it were handled properly) should be somewhere where you wouldn't have to veto anything first

@MilkmanDan

Please watch the video and interview. There is no way a kid can get anywhere near hormonal treatment, let alone grs, before going through a battery of psychiatrists and doctors over a period of many, many years. Do you think a "dumbass" with mixed ideas about their identity could possibly slip through?

As for calling this "genital mutilation", @CaptainPlanet, I am frankly disgusted at your flippant use of the term. You know what would've been genital mutilation? When a young Tim Petras tried to cut off her penis out of frustration of being in the wrong body. As a strong opponent of genital mutilation (including male circumcision performed on minors), I am doubly insulted, as would surely be Kim. Calling grs "genital mutilation" is akin to calling this "facial mutilation": technically true, connotatively false.

@bmacs27

Talking about consent makes it seem the parents were the ones who pushed this on her, instead of vice-versa. I doubt that's what you meant, but I just thought I'd clarify. Like I mentioned above, gender identity isn't solely a question of sexuality, and it is defined long before puberty. Moreover, the hormonal treatment - which is reversible at any time - spanned at least four psychiatrist-followed years. I'm pretty sure if there had been the slightest inkling of a doubt during that period the shrinks would have picked up on it and vetoed the surgical procedure. Also, please notice that her grs was not "pre-pubescent": seriously, how many kids hit puberty at 16? Moreover, while the hormone treatment is reversible, male puberty is not (cf my above comments).

As for data, there surely is (too lazy to look now), showing that those who come to the idea of grs because of confused sexual identity or problems linked to abuse are kindly redirected during the long psychiatric process. I happen to know a psychiatrist who specialises in transsexualism (in CH you are required by law to see one minimum 1 year before being considered for hormonal treatment, 2 years for grs, in addition to being over 18), and she told me that cases of perceived transsexualism due to childhood abuse and/or confused sexual identity (notably repressed homosexuality) are not rare. There are instances of hormone use, namely in Brazil, for simply lucrative purposes ("dick-girl" prostitution), which I am obviously against if pressured upon the person (sadly the case sometimes).

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Nice speech, now do something about it.


I agree, BUT:
I think that we have unrealistic expectations about Presidents being proactive and "getting things done" in all sorts of policy areas, when the reality of the checks and balances between different branches of government makes it so they actually can't do all of these things. Congress / the legislative branch sets tax rates, so the president has little to do with it, other than veto/approval of what congress puts on his desk.

So, making a speech is pretty much the only way that he actually can "do something about it".

The fact that every single president or presidential candidate makes campaign promises about things like this that are in reality almost entirely out of their control is frustrating, but on the other hand "if I get any tax increase bills from Congress, I will most likely try to veto it unless it is attached as a rider onto some other item that I am unable to veto" doesn't make for quite as good a sound-bite as "read my lips, no new taxes" (even if it turns out that you're just flat-out lying).

To get elected, you have to make promises that you can't actually follow through on, at least not without seriously adjusting the definition of "follow through".

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Bush Vetos the SChip Bill: Healthcare for poor kids = bad. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video SCHIP Veto Explained to Children. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

I wish I could promote this comment. Instead, I'll just have to promote Goldy the Stranger's website, and particular the blog post this comes from...

*five minutes after searching "Rick Perry" on the site*

Holy shit, Dick Perry is so much more of an ignorant, hateful, despicable corporate shill of a fundie rethuglican candidate than I could've imagined! This post in particular got to me, and not just because it involves Switzerland's biggest, evilist bank (UBS) either:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/08/25/rick-perry-wanted-to-profit-on-dead-texas-teachers

"Let's bet on how quick we can tire old teachers into dying and make killer bucks off their hard earned savings, yay!!"


p.s.: Another tidbit of Perryntelligenz: Gay marriage, dangerous and bad. Texting while driving, a-okay.


>> ^bareboards2:

complete blog post from Goldy at The Stranger -- I thought this was great (emphasis added):
One of the more telling moments from last night's Republican presidential debate was when the audience at the Reagan Library broke out in wild applause at the mention of 234 death row inmates executed in Texas on Gov. Rick Perry's watch... no doubt some of whom were innocent.
I can understand why some people might support capital punishment, particularly the families of victims, although I personally oppose the practice on a number of grounds. But I have zero empathy for those who would applaud Texas's prolific rate of execution, as if it were something to aspire to. The brutal vindictiveness of many in the Republican base is never more on display than when they cheer an execution or two (or 234) as if it were a game-winning touchdown.
There is an interesting analogy to be made with the similarly hot-button issue of abortion, where the anti-abortion-rights forces adopted the "Pro-Life" label in order to imply that their Pro-Choice opponents were in fact Pro-Death. Of course, we're not. We're not even "Pro-Abortion" per se. While we may loudly cheer legislative and legal victories that support the right to reproductive choice, I'd wager that nobody has ever heard a round of hearty applause arise at the tally of aborted fetuses. Through improved education, counseling, and access to effective birth control, the goal has always been to make abortion safe, legal, and rare, with no particular extra emphasis on any one of those three objectives over the others. An abortion may evoke in some a sense of relief, but it's hard to imagine that it has ever been a cause for celebration.

One would think that even the most ardent capital punishment supporters (many of whom ironically self-identify as Pro-Life) would be more respectful of the awesome responsibility that comes with government sanctioned executions. But judging from that disturbing moment in last night's debate, apparently not.

I'm skeptical too, boise. This may be legit, but it may also be another astroturf venture designed to manufacture consent for some yet to be revealed agenda. It's hard to trust anyone in politics these days, and keeping your finances secret is not a good sign - you gotta figure the Citizens United ruling was part of some larger plan. Also, one of confirmed funders, Arno Political Consultants, has a track record of election fraud.

Arno Political Consultants Controversies (from wiki).

In 2004, APC hired JSM who hired YPM who is accused of tricking people into registering to vote as a Republican.[2]

In 2004, APC is accused of forging signatures on a petition to legalize slot machines in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.[5]

In 2005, APC has come under fire for allegedly fraudulent ballot petitioning strategies, particularly pertaining to a Massachusetts anti-gay marriage proposal as put forth by the Massachusetts Family Institute.[6][7]

In 2007, APC hired JSM, Inc. who hired independent contractors who gave snacks and food to homeless people in exchange for signing petitions and registering to vote.[8]

In 2009, proponents of a payday loan veto referendum sued APC in Franklin County for breach of contract and negligence. 13,000 signatures were thrown out because the Form 15's had not been appropriately filled out. They were seeking $438,000. [9] Both parties reached an undisclosed settlement agreement on July 29th, 2009.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_Political_Consultants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_Elect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_Political_Consultants

>> ^mfsteele:

Let's just sit back and watch the conservatives blame the whole thing on Obama.

But he does own significant responsibility this time. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire was entirely within his power to do (by vetoing the extension). I doubt Congress would have been able to pass it with two supermajorities but, even if they had, at least he would have done what he should have.

That's not to say the Republicans have no stake in the mess they're creating, but Obama is just as guilty for doing nothing to stop them.

@quantumushroom

I agree with your general message here, though not on some of the specifics. RP is very vulnerable to scare tactics and they will certainly come out in force if he ever gets close to a nomination. He's calling for fairly drastic change. It wouldn't take much to get people terrified of that.

You, yourself have already participated in such scare tactics, which is odd as someone who "agrees with Paul on most things". Examples: You've called him an anarchist in the past and, right here in this thread, you say that China will take over the world if we bring our military home.

It's true that the president doesn't have the power to manhandle the entire government, but I think RP could be pretty effective with the bully pulpit. Also, he wouldn't be shy with the veto. He could do a lot to prevent new stupid/illegal decisions from being made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qojv1bR-S0


That was quite the wall of text just for that quip.

Thanks for pointing that out. I think I mentioned that though so it makes your statement kind of insulting.

I think Paul would be better than Bush, but far, far worse than Obama. You want to blame Obama for Gitmo, apparently, but you obviously haven't cared about the topic enough to actually follow the sequence of events. Congress passed a law barring Obama from bringing the detainees onto American soil, and before that New York City opposed bringing KSM to trial there because of security concerns. I think anyone who thinks Ron Paul is somehow going to overcome those obstacles is deluding themselves.

Apparently, you are wrong about my lack of care in this particular topic. Do not generalize. Congress did pass the law, and so? They passed it, if I am correct, in 2009? So he did close it in 2008 when he had a chance? No he did not. And who cares what New York City opposed? Many states opposed blacks being integrated with whites in public schools too—and we know where that went...

I don’t think Paul can overcome the obstacles that Obama has allowed in terms of Gitmo. However, there are ways, one would be leverage. But there are plenty more.

Would the Republican party line up and vote for legislation that would let the detainees come here for Federal trials if Paul tells them to? I doubt it.

Republicans would absolutely not line up behind Ron Paul for this or most other matters. In fact, they would go against nearly every policy he tries because they are corporate hacks and they hate a truly “free” market. Corporations enjoy too many hand outs, too many protections that our government gives them… Just look at how the Republican party speak out Paul...even while pretending to emulate him.

Would Paul make Gitmo his #1 priority? I doubt it.

#1? Maybe not. And? Second or third is fine. However, pointing against your suggestion that he would not give it his best to remove this unconstitutional bullshit, he has been major in his stand on habeas corpus…

Would Paul try to repeal the Civil Rights Act? I bet he wouldn't veto a repeal if Congress passed it...

And? Congress and the House would not have the votes for a repeal, so, like I said, this is a straw-man issue we have…

Would Paul try to repeal Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and health care reform? You betcha! Priority #1, even.

Um, now who doesn’t know what they are talking about? First, Paul stated that he would not, because it was infeasible (Social security and Medicare/Medicaid.) He said he would allow opt outs, and that we would need to fulfill our obligations to those who have already been promised their dues, somehow, to those currently in the program. Just watch the video I posted a link too.

Would Paul get impeached if he tried to rapidly withdraw our troops from everywhere, and then slash the military budget? Almost certainly.

I would be honored to be impeached for doing the right thing. Since when do people only do the right thing when it is easy? That's not the right thing, that convenient. And, actually, the clamor from most republicans citizens (Even those at the VFW I go to) is to cut the military (To a significant degree) because we are in a serious financial crisis. They also, with the actions in Libya and around, wonder if we can sustain our empire. A year ago, you would have been 100% right. We must admit, most Americans want our troops home, even from Iraq and Af-gan.

For the record, I totally agreed with what heropsycho said (the comment you said was 100% right). Paul and libertarians refuse to accept the good things that government regulation has provided us, and dismiss (and decry as EVIL!) the idea that any new good could come from new regulation.

Agreed. Just make sure to note that certain people (Me and others) agree that some regulations need to be a federal issue.

Worse, they want to dismantle all the good, and absolutely forestall any more progress being made in this country on any major issue. Maybe he'd impotently try to deal with the war and associated civil liberties issues, but I doubt he'd even bother when there's still a New Deal to repeal.

He cares about bankruptcy first.

"If we made common sense about this yes I would cut all this militarism and not cut people off from medical care."

I don't see a problem with this. And his view that the dollar will go, some say is doomsday...and so they said that about the levies, and so they said that about 9/11, and so they say it till it happens.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

(Sorry for the length of this response...)

That was quite the wall of text just for that quip.

I think Paul would be better than Bush, but far, far worse than Obama. You want to blame Obama for Gitmo, apparently, but you obviously haven't cared about the topic enough to actually follow the sequence of events. Congress passed a law barring Obama from bringing the detainees onto American soil, and before that New York City opposed bringing KSM to trial there because of security concerns. I think anyone who thinks Ron Paul is somehow going to overcome those obstacles is deluding themselves.

Would the Republican party line up and vote for legislation that would let the detainees come here for Federal trials if Paul tells them to? I doubt it.

Would Paul make Gitmo his #1 priority? I doubt it.

Would Paul try to repeal the Civil Rights Act? I bet he wouldn't veto a repeal if Congress passed it...

Would Paul try to repeal Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and health care reform? You betcha! Priority #1, even.

Would Paul get impeached if he tried to rapidly withdraw our troops from everywhere, and then slash the military budget? Almost certainly.

For the record, I totally agreed with what heropsycho said (the comment you said was 100% right). Paul and libertarians refuse to accept the good things that government regulation has provided us, and dismiss (and decry as EVIL!) the idea that any new good could come from new regulation.

Worse, they want to dismantle all the good, and absolutely forestall any more progress being made in this country on any major issue. Maybe he'd impotently try to deal with the war and associated civil liberties issues, but I doubt he'd even bother when there's still a New Deal to repeal.

>> ^rottenseed:

oh yea! yes yes that's it, ol' chap! Now what if, let's say, we have a situation (let me assure you that this is PURELY hypothetical) wherein the congress is heavily influenced by corporations...how would a president pass legislation against corporatism then?>> ^blankfist:
>> ^rottenseed:
Remind me...what steps would a president have to take to push through legislation? Magic? A really stern tone of voice and finger wagging?>> ^blankfist:
>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^blankfist:
See, I think the two parties are part of the problem, and they tend to be pro-corporatist and pro-war.

It's silly that you would think ANY elected president could change corporatism. Corporatism runs deeper than the president.

I doubt any President could do much to change corporatism unless he tried to push it through legislation that all corporate charters would be revoked, because corporations do NOT run deeper than the government. They're government created entities.


It's called Congress. Surely you've heard of the other branches of government?



He couldn't. That's the failure of any human government.

But would you rather have a corporatist prez or not? At the very least he could veto pro-corporatist legislation, right?

It is propaganda, just like a lot of Hollywood war films. And the government loves it - censors out what they don't approve of in exchange for renting out military vehicles to Hollywood for next to nothing.

The funny thing is, I hated that the army made a video game recruitment tool. But, to be honest at least it was difficult as $&&% directly in contrast to these big budget titles that make it "immersive" (immersive as in loud noises and yelling) and easy.


>> ^BoneyD:

>> ^ghark:
Wow what arrogance and perhaps cluelessness from the writers, soldiers are over there committing war crimes on behalf of the American plutocracy, and they have the gall to say the forces are there to "restore stability". I'm as big a fan of FPS'ers as the next guy, but if they are going to use real world locations, at least make an attempt to learn about the situation there first.
How would you feel if another country invaded you town or city for its oil, then killed tens of thousands of your women, children, students, reporters etc, but if you fought back you were branded terrorists. Walls are built to divide you from your friends and close family, stealth bombers, Black Hawks, Apaches and UAV's patrol your skies, tanks roll through your streets, yes that's stability we are bringing to you backward folks.
I just looked up the deathcount in Iraq, currently it's sitting at ~100,000 civilians. The people that buy this game and support the developers are basically saying that these 100,000 deaths, many of whom are buried in mass graves, are nothing more than a joke.
A couple from last month:
8th Feb - Father and son shot dead in Al Moushahada, north Baghdad
10th Feb - Mobile phone shop owner shot dead in central Falluja
11th/12th Feb - Student by explosive device in Yaychi, southwest of Kirkuk
15th Feb - Man shot dead in front of house in Kirkuk

This is because they've sold their souls to the US Military Propoganda Wing (sorry Media Relations) in exchange for their help making the game more 'authentic'. See a video explaining this type of relationship here, as it pertains to Hollywood.
Of course, the trade off for their expert assistance is that they get to veto anything in script that they don't approve of. Any mention of atrocities and civilian deaths at the hands of the US would be the first thing on the chopping block. Look at the latest Medal of Honour for example: reference to the opposing force being named Taliban called for removal. EA buckled to the demand, preserving their ongoing cooperation.
Which isn't to say that you can't enjoy these games for what they are. But do recognise the implicit recruiting advertisments and general support for the war industry.

>> ^ghark:

Wow what arrogance and perhaps cluelessness from the writers, soldiers are over there committing war crimes on behalf of the American plutocracy, and they have the gall to say the forces are there to "restore stability". I'm as big a fan of FPS'ers as the next guy, but if they are going to use real world locations, at least make an attempt to learn about the situation there first.
How would you feel if another country invaded you town or city for its oil, then killed tens of thousands of your women, children, students, reporters etc, but if you fought back you were branded terrorists. Walls are built to divide you from your friends and close family, stealth bombers, Black Hawks, Apaches and UAV's patrol your skies, tanks roll through your streets, yes that's stability we are bringing to you backward folks.
I just looked up the deathcount in Iraq, currently it's sitting at ~100,000 civilians. The people that buy this game and support the developers are basically saying that these 100,000 deaths, many of whom are buried in mass graves, are nothing more than a joke.
A couple from last month:
8th Feb - Father and son shot dead in Al Moushahada, north Baghdad
10th Feb - Mobile phone shop owner shot dead in central Falluja
11th/12th Feb - Student by explosive device in Yaychi, southwest of Kirkuk
15th Feb - Man shot dead in front of house in Kirkuk


This is because they've sold their souls to the US Military Propoganda Wing (sorry Media Relations) in exchange for their help making the game more 'authentic'. See a video explaining this type of relationship here, as it pertains to Hollywood.

Of course, the trade off for their expert assistance is that they get to veto anything in script that they don't approve of. Any mention of atrocities and civilian deaths at the hands of the US would be the first thing on the chopping block. Look at the latest Medal of Honour for example: reference to the opposing force being named Taliban called for removal. EA buckled to the demand, preserving their ongoing cooperation.

Which isn't to say that you can't enjoy these games for what they are. But do recognise the implicit recruiting advertisments and general support for the war industry.