Frankie_Grove

Originally posted by: Xyloxadoria For the pople asking about moving the wall: The wall has to be like that or the support from the original ramp shows through and makes a strange blend with the wall. The top of the support is still visible near the intersection. jugioh1012:The mod is the dashed roads mod and can be found here scroll down some and there is a link New Update I made new pylons for the Blank terrain pieces and a wall for the start/end pieces Here is a picture of them both together: If you want any changes or new pieces post a request.quote> I like what you are doing, looks great so far! However, I would like to make a suggestion or two. First, the support columns in the middle are too big. I understand that the NAM puzzle pieces have big supports that need be covered up, however at them moment it looks too big. Second, I like that texture you have on there, however generally in the real world the materials used are more suited for load bearing structures. Instead of standard bricks, hexagons are used. The following photo (from Live Local) demonstrates the standard wall design. I do have an idea that you may or may not like; another lot that covers the grass portions next to the RHW under the bridge. These are only some suggestions though, for improvement of your existing work.

All media is biased in one way or another. Naturally, people will accept the news that is biased towards their personal stance. MSNBC shows just as much (if not more?) bias than FOX, however more people accept it because it is a left-wing bias. (most are used to a Liberal media bias on all news in the US, and we can tell by FOX that when one network steps out of that Liberal rut, people flip). I have personally watched FOX, MSNBC, CNN, and some BBC, and they ALL show bias, some more than others. Some just flat out lie (MSNBC), some show a very heavy bias (FOX), some make too many outlandish predictions (CNN), and finally others are just flat out mis-informed about other cultures (BBC). It seems that there is a rather large cultural rift, quite visible by the posts in this thread (which is funny, because last I checked this was a thread about Cuba and Fidel Castro, not Media Bias). And for the record, Top Gear is shown in the US, I even used to watch it (until I saw that episode where they were in Alabama, that was not funny, and completely destroyed my like of the show) In response to what I saw on some earlier posts, the problem with the US healthcare system is not quality, availability is the issue. Fidel Castro quit, so what? Nothing will change until the natural course of Communism makes the country collapse, and until then, we wait.

We did have an embargo on China. Bill Clinton lifted it (the EU weapons embargo is still there through).

Communism would only work with a bunch of newborn babies that could be "conditioned" to accept it. Of course, you'd have to occasionally remove (execute) the "free thinkers", or anyone who didn't accept the system. Marx's ideas were meant to be implemented in a perfect world that does not, nor will ever exist.

Originally posted by: Boggy1 Cuba's economy is in a very sorry state because of the US embargo. They can't trade with the US at all; a huge defecit when it comes to the economy. They never had a chance to have a really sucessful economy. Please read what I've posted. They are a sucessful communist state. Thats politics. Not economy.quote> The US is not the only trade-worthy country on the planet. Nor does a country have to be dependent on another to have a successful economy. Originally posted by: Boggy1 Also, please take note of the etcetera, there are many more things that the Cuban's dont have, that certainly DO have a large impact on their daily lives. Of course its to do with the embargo. If you aren't trading with the USA, especially back in the 50s - 80s, you barely had access to any new developments.quote> Care to elaborate just a little bit more? Originally posted by: Boggy1 Expense? Income tax rate, if that is what you mean, is at 50% round about, though this is about average, especially for a European nation. Unemployment is also low, standing at 1.6%, whereas the USA is at 5%.quote> I believe you know I meant all the lives lost because of Cuban policy.

Originally posted by: Boggy1 To those saying why people are fleeing Cuba...Cuba's economy is in a very sorry state right now.quote> If they are so successful, that should not be happening. Originally posted by: Boggy1 They are still being forced to drive 1950s cars, they are using 30 year old computers, there is barely enough food to go around, etcetera etcetera. So of course you would want to leave. But why has all this happened to Cuba? The US embargo. It's the US's fault.quote> 50's cars were built much better than cars are today, the Cubans are lucky. So what if they use 30 year old computers? I'm quite certain that it is not the center of their (or anyones) lives. Cars and computers are hardly reasons to risk your life to leave a country. It has nothing to do with the US embargo. Originally posted by: Boggy1 As mentioned, its health and education system far outperforms the USA and most of the rest of the world.quote> At what expense?

This is a rather funny tangent... Air conditioners are not everywhere in the US. I went out West a couple years ago, and not a single home had an air conditioner. Here in the South you can't live without one, during the summer months the heat will sap the energy out of you in seconds. But who am i to talk, my house is whatever temperature it is outside (no heat or AC). Clotheslines down here were done away as soon as we could get our hands on dryers, because your clothes pick up so much pollen that your white shirts turn green. As for appliances, I agree that here in the US we have a lot more space, our houses run 3 or 4 times as big. Now, lets get back on topic here, eh?

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 I know very little about economies, but isnt socialism the one were the government owns all the buisnesses, and your pay has nothing to do with how well you do your job? so basically, you can be a lazy bum and make the same about as a hard working person? once again, my economic education is limited to about 1:30 hours in social studies so im probably confusing socialism with somthing else. quote> You're thinking Communism. Communism and Socialism are very similar, but also very different. Communism is extreme Socialism. The primary difference is Socialism has privately-owned Corporations, under Communism the government has complete control of well..everything. Its hard to describe a country that has true socialism, as really no such thing exists (most "Socialist" countries are actually mixed economy). Socialism does sort of take away the ability for one person to go out and make themselves rich (it does happen, just harder to do). Because the reality of it is, instead of working to better yourself, you're actually supporting everyone else (I know this seems a bit "out there" but its the best way I know to describe).

Originally posted by: manticorefan zel: Sweden, which conflicts with graph but it came up during a separate search. The graph is older. A graph I posted in another thread, pertinent to the current discussion, but a little off-topic... quote> Well, those countries closer to the bottom on the list need to have higher personal taxes, else the government wouldn't have much of any spending money (they have far less corporations to tax). However, come over to the US and we don't need to have as much of personal taxes because we can get so much from Corporations (Corporate taxes pay for our entire military and then some during peacetime).

Originally posted by: El Burro Cuba will always be there to defy the US, no matter if it means another 50 years of Communism.quote> It's interesting that Cuba continues to show so much animosity to the US. Perhaps they are still angry because we wouldn't let them become a state? (hey tried to join several times, all petitions were rejected). We helped them gain their independence, and well, it would seem that we shouldn't have.

Hmm..with Romney out, looks like Huckabee is getting the Conservative votes (I don't think he can get enough to have a chance though). The real focus by the media is on the Hillary vs. Obama ordeal, which kinda puts the Republicans in shadow. Huckabee was on The Colbert Report a few days ago, he's actually a pretty cool person, but that doesn't mean he would make a good president.

Originally posted by: spa In a way I'm a little disappointed. All I watch on TV, besides the CBC news, is the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. Both Stewart and Colbert had to be a lot more on their toes without writers to rely on. I think the shows were actually better in the last few weeks then they have been before the writers left. Of course having them off the air for Nov and Dec kind of sucked so it's probably a good thing in the end.quote> I agree, the Colbert Report has been a whole lot better since the writers strike.... Great to see things starting to return to normal, that being said, this could be the best news in a while... PS: I hate Battlestar Galactica!!

Originally posted by: JanYpe Originally posted by: belfastuniguy I also believe that if McCain gets the ticket then conservative Republicans will vote for Hillary. quote> Why do you think the Republican base would drop their own candidate in favour of a pro-choice, anti second amendment Democrat? I know McCain isn't all that well liked, but he'd still be the lesser of two evils. I can see Obama pulling some voters across the party lines, but a polarizing candidate like Clinton?quote> He said the Conservative base, not the Republican one. Conservatives are a group who are actually more or less independent, but they are the usual Republican supporters. In some cases Conservatives have in fact widely supported a Democrat (Jimmy Carter won almost all the Conservatives in 1976). Also, realize that the Republican Party has significantly fewer base members than the Democrats. The elections really pivot on swing voters, not the people who stick to their parties no matter what.

Now that I think about it, its rather coincidental that this is only a month shy a year since that incident at Enterprise High School. (which is 17 miles West of me, for the time being..).

These were really bad because they were way out of season. Over where I am we got rain from this system last evening and over the night.

Originally posted by: david1314 That's super cheap. I would drop Cable TV and Internet in a second to get this for half the price! ZOMG...this is about what I pay for my cable interweb!quote> That's interesting because my cable internet only cost me about $25ish per month. (but then again I'm the only user and I get my TV via satellite )

Cable internet has always worked out fine for me, and at quarter the cost of this "new" service.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove Its rather interesting that you complain about voting just because of religion, race, gender, etc. Yet you two only seem to care about their political parties And for the record, our politicians are meant to reflect the majority (how else they get there in the first place?) which is why we have quite a few religious politicians (even your beloved Democrats). If you want to ban religious people from running for all offices, and instead only allow the atheists/non-religious, no longer is the majority represented, but instead a picky minority. Balance and compromise, friends, is the key, and remember that you can't always get what you want.quote> Don't give me that garbage. What do you think a political party is? It is a group of members who believe in the same general set of ideas. In my case, liberal thinking. Democrats fit the bill, Republicans are far from it.quote> What difference does that make? Wouldn't you rather freely decide instead of being bound to your party? When it comes down to you, are you really going to choose a candidate only because they are of a specific party? You are basically saying that because a candidate is Republican they are automatically a terrible person who would run our country in to the ground, and instead of regarding the issues, it comes back to the party only. If that is the case, what is the point of even choosing a candidate if they all are exactly the same? I know a lot wish that Democrats were the only party and that they would control the government forever and ever, but I highly doubt that will happen. You have to give Republicans some credit though, since they win quite a few elections despite their party being significantly smaller than the Democratic one. It should be known that just because a party "supports" a certain ideal does not mean they will stick to it, we all know how politicians, as well as their party supporters are major flip-floppers. Also, I have not brought religion into my discussion for the candidates, so why do you? You spout about the majority, but let me remind you that the United States is a free society. Regardless of the number of religious freaks, everyone is guaranteed to live in a society free of government-sanctioned religion, and the indirect imposition of said ideals. I voted for Clinton, and I am sure he is religious (perhaps not engrossed in it, like Bush or Huckabee), but I am sure he does not correlate to my ideas about religion. Big deal. He didn't push it on society. If I were eligible to vote when Jimmy Carter ran in '80, I would not have blinked in my support for him. He is very religious, but his religion has nothing to do with it. If he was more aggressive, then I would have had my doubts, but he was not. quote> You have indeed made comments about religion and politics, plus that wasn't really directed at you I was being general. So I guess all of us "freaks" who happen to be slightly religious don't deserve to talk about our religion, or at least acknowledge that we do? I don't think that anyone has a right to judge another person, especially a presidential candidate just because of one aspect of their lives, whether it is their party, their religion, whatever. "Balance and compromise" does not pertain to the fundamental tenets of our society and I strongly suggest you get with the program. Barbarossaquote> Without compromise and balance, we would not be here today, and it is not a good idea to deny that.

Its rather interesting that you complain about voting just because of religion, race, gender, etc. Yet you two only seem to care about their political parties And for the record, our politicians are meant to reflect the majority (how else they get there in the first place?) which is why we have quite a few religious politicians (even your beloved Democrats). If you want to ban religious people from running for all offices, and instead only allow the atheists/non-religious, no longer is the majority represented, but instead a picky minority. Balance and compromise, friends, is the key, and remember that you can't always get what you want.

Originally posted by: ILL Tonkso Whoever said they take more energy to make than they provide. That is (officially) one of the false 'facts' created by the anti-turbine societies.quote> They eventually pay for themselves, however they do take lots of input. You need raw material from the ground, (lot more than aluminum for the generator parts, vast amounts of copper are requried). You then must transport these raw materials (by trucks) to a factory. Factory makes machinery and a separate facility makes the mast. The parts must then be shipped great distances (usually) requiring heavy duty trucks again. At first this tips the balance because in the end thats a lot of resources for one turbine. Coal is dirt cheap, and is preferred by power companies. Most coal-fired plants are located deep in forested areas, and much of the surrounding area is uninhabited. Hyrdoelectric is a great source of continuous energy that gives back to the community around it by providing a lake (tourism), and flood protection. Unfortunately new large-scale dam projects are banned in the US due to new "environmental concerns".

Originally posted by: your_adress_here As a Canadian, I must say that I would never see Canada and the U.S. merging, ever.quote> But with the NAU (North American Union, a more radical version of the EU) on the horizon, you might not have a choice. Originally posted by: Jamonbread A history lesson on when Canada kicked but, Canada was in both world wars longer than the U.S. and did more than the U.S.quote> Care to explain?

Originally posted by: manticorefan Originally posted by: Duke87 I follow you completely except for Romans in North America. I think you meant Europe.quote> There is ample evidence of Romans in North America. Roman coins have been found, as have amphora in the Gulf of Mexico and possibly even a Roman cemetery. There are a few sources, I'll let people research it for themselves. Some sources are of dubious character, I will admit. Some skepticism is called for. Dr Naomi Norman, University of Georgia professor and member of the Archaeological Institute Of America is a specialist on Romans in America.quote> I find that difficult to believe. The Romans excelled at naval technology, but long range travel by Roman vessel would have been impossible (their ships were built for shallow seas and shorter distances..). Unless a ship was lost and perhaps drifted to North America, there is no other way it could have happened. I doubt the Chinese visited Mexico, at that time less advanced groups of Aztecs, Mayans, and other civilizations would have occupied the area. You know from history how they reacted to the Spaniards, and if another race (Chinese) had truly come to Mexico, it would have been in their history. Someone tried to explain to me the knight's templar and their business in the Americas, but I remain skeptical until enough evidence presents itself. So what if some artifacts have been found out of place, that happens a lot because thieves and grave-robbers have always existed throughout history.

Originally posted by: Boggy1My school of 600 pupils has three black students, two polish, a few English, one asian, and a single white African. Scary? I'm positive that it is the same in the USA, that different areas have different levels of immigration.quote> That is a bit scary, the biggest school I went to had 1,500 students..~700 black, ~725 white, ~75 hispanic or asian. True that most places have had more immigration than others. For example, most every US state has a majority German ancestry (the Southern states are the exception, where the majority are of Scottish decent). States closest to the Mexican border have more Mexicans than other states and so on. Another country that is rarely brought in to immigration discussion is Brazil. Immigration wise, Brazil like the US, was built on Immigration, only they received a more exotic mix. As mentioned, it would be more difficult for an immigrant to assimilate in Europe than in the US. The vast majority of Europeans who immigrate to the US have no problems assimilating, and most would probably never return to Europe aside from Vacation. Of course, that might be true of Americans who move to Europe? Who knows. How does an immigrant get healthcare under a socialized system anyways? If they don't pay the taxes they don't get the service? Or are they treated anyways? The reality of it is, Socialism and Capitalism aren't really superior to one another. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Usually it depends on the country with the system, and the leader of said county. Capitalism gives every person a chance to advance themselves. (don't ever say thats not true, a hard working, intelligent student from a poor family can get a scholarship and get a high paying job). I think that Socialism deprives a lot of individuals of incentive, since either way you aren't really going to better yourself. In an attempt to provide a level playing field, it has really taken away any reason to get ahead. (How do you like that...covered Immigration, Capitalism vs. Socialism, and touched on Healthcare, all in one post!)

Hard to believe its been 50 years.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguyWell I always though America would, the simple fact is that they have a very very large black population. Europe in comparison has a very small black population, so I think basing the view that Europe is more racist is somewhat unfair. The black population in the UK is only about 3%.quote> Well, yes America does have a very large black population, but its not really all that spread out, nor is it really that large (maybe compared to other countries though). If I was to guess, I'd say that 90%+ of the African American population lives in the South, with some other pockets spread out across the country. A concentrated group doesn't necessarily mean acceptance in the rest of the country. Observe this 2000 Census map for reference. (Also notice the enormous German ancestory group...). However, in my opinion no-one should elect someone based on their race - that just isn't right. And that goes both ways, voting for someone just because they are black, or not voting for someone because they are.