Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Gold - Terrorist Takedown

The Terrorist Takedown Website (thanks Frans) has word that CITY Interactive's arcade-style counter-terrorist game is gold, and should be appearing on store shelves in the U.S. over the next couple of weeks:

Steeped in today's headlines with vivid 3D environments and powerful special effects, “Terrorist Takedown” is nonstop military action. Take control of AH-64 and UH-1 helicopters, operate High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs), and fire heavy machine guns, rocket launchers, and more as you strike at known terrorists and their sponsors. In 16 heart-pounding missions, you must defeat the terrorists and protect our homeland.

View
55 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

55. Re: No subject Nov 9, 2004, 15:08 Gandhi
 
Sorry for being off-topic here but ..... is this game like CounterStrike:Source, except with vehicles?

You cannot make anything fool-proof. The fools are too inventive
 
Avatar 11944
 
You cannot make anything fool-proof. The fools are too inventive

GW: Tr Gandhi (Ra), Shiva Sung (Mo), Mangal Pandey (Ne), Rana Pratap Singh (Wa), Boddhi Satwa (Ri), Bhagat Singh (De), Bahadur Shastri (Pa)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
54. Re: No subject Nov 5, 2004, 15:09 Tango
 
All the familly stores are gone ....in other words if you want to work in my home town now, you either work at the Hospital, school, or that big retail chain.
I wasn't arguing that family stores etc lose out. Nor was I arguing (not particularly strongly, anyway) that I think the unlimited growth of WalMart is necessarily a good thing. Of course not. My point was based on what the economics would say, which, with respect, I have a very good understanding of. WalMart is a very good example of free market economics in action. It's that simple. This is a good example of where the maths of economics and the various models they present conflicts with the human/ political/ ethical side of things.

Kind of like the people who cry year after year for tax cuts and complain about youth crime... but they do not want to pay for after school programs or any type of program that would take kids of the street. It's taxes that finance all those programs & cops.
Not sure what your point is here. WalMart pay tax too, you know. I'd guess they pay more than the family stores you mention, too. Plus they employ a lot of people that may otherwise not get jobs.


I'm not saying WalMart are wonderful and can do no wrong. I'm just suggesting they're often criticised by the same people that claim to live in the closest economy to a true free market in the world.

______________________
My name's Elliot, and I'm with the Cub Scouts of America. We're... we're selling uncut cocaine to get to the jamboree. -True Romance
 
Avatar 18712
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
53. Re: No subject Nov 5, 2004, 11:45 4D-Boxing
 
I grew up in a small town in atlantic canada in the 80s... back then we had at least a douzen stores to chose from to buy clothes. Now in 2004 there is only 2 stores. This change happened in the span of a year. My father who just retired this past summer..told me "now that this big chains is here there is only one store in town where you can buy socks " All the familly stores are gone ....in other words if you want to work in my home town now, you either work at the Hospital, school, or that big retail chain.


This guy says Wal MArt is a good thing, but he will be the first one to complain about homeless jobless people asking him for change when he walks down the street. Kind of like the people who cry year after year for tax cuts and complain about youth crime... but they do not want to pay for after school programs or any type of program that would take kids of the street. It's taxes that finance all those programs & cops.

It's basically pointless to debate something like this with someone who has a limited understanding of free market economics & finances.



Demand determines what stores offer. If Wal-Mart does not offer what comsumers want, it will either change to start offering it or consumers will go elsewhere.

That is exactly the problem, there is no elswhere! Everyone else shuts down. Time to check out the reality on the groud & stop watching Lou Dobbs money line. A nation can not survive buy just having larger chains, it needs small & medium size companies to keep the economy rolling.


Small firms:


Represent more than 99.7 percent of all employers.


Employ more than half of all private sector employees.


Pay 44.5 percent of total U.S. private payroll.


Generate 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually.


Create more than 50 percent of nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP).


Supplied 22.8 percent of the total value of federal prime contracts (about $50 billion) in FY 2001.


Produce 13 to 14 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms. These patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.


Are employers of 39 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer workers).


Are 53 percent home-based and 3 percent franchises.


Made up 97 percent of all identified exporters and produced 29 percent of the known export value in FY 2001.



Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Advocacy-funded research by Joel Popkin and Company (Research Summary #211); Federal Procurement Data System; Advocacy-funded research by CHI Research, Inc. (Research Summary #225); Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey; U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration italic text



 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
52. Re: No subject Nov 5, 2004, 03:52 Tango
 
Tell you what - you keep your opinion and your confidence in American capitalism
Please, this is silly. If you study more than 5 minutes of economics you'd understand exactly why this is not an opinion it is fairly easily provable. Plus I'd never call capitalism American. It was about long before America and will be about long after it. If you want to know my sources, there are various academic journals I can point you to (although unless you have JStor membersship you'd have to pay for them) and various easier articles in the Economist and other sensible newspapers. Again, I'm happy to post links but it's pointless if you don't have a membership.

It would be a Good Thing if it were true... but it isn't
With any economics 101 it is fairly easy to see that it is. It is also easy to support, and a number of journal articles have done just that. Again, I can toddle off and find you some links, but unless you or your university has access to JStor you won't be able to get them. The Economist again has various articles.

This isn't opinion, it's simple maths. The opinion part comes in when you argue if this is a good thing or not. If you are a free market economist, you say yes. If you believe in the role of regulation you say no. We disagree here.

Wal-mart stores Inc. is the nation's largest company, representing 2.3 percent of the gross domestic product and employing 1.5 million workers. Don't talk to me about small market shares. You're simply misinformed.
We also disagree here. Wal Mart accounts for 7% of US retail sales. That is huge, I grant you, but is far less than other firms have in other industries. For instance the big oil companies may have 15-20% of the market. In political terms, it is usually market share that gives the clout, rather than sheer size.



______________________
My name's Elliot, and I'm with the Cub Scouts of America. We're... we're selling uncut cocaine to get to the jamboree. -True Romance
This comment was edited on Nov 5, 03:56.
 
Avatar 18712
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: No subject Nov 5, 2004, 00:09 PHJF
 
Consumers can't go elsewhere you jack, Wal-Mart is shutting the world down.

------
“The closer you get to being a pro, the closer you can get to the client. The knife, for example, is the last thing you learn. Ok?"
 
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50. Re: No subject Nov 4, 2004, 21:42 Riley Pizt
 
But do you think Wal-Mart offers the variety that, say, Kaybee Toys offers? Nooooo. That would be too risky. So Wal-Mart kills off the toy stores by stealing the Big Toy sales and now your choices include ONLY what the hot items are that year... nothing else. Better for the cosumer? I think not.
That argument is fallacious. Demand determines what stores offer. If Wal-Mart does not offer what comsumers want, it will either change to start offering it or consumers will go elsewhere. In capitalism, a supplier will always arise to meet a demand. That is why boutique-type retailers still exist in the face of the discount chain stores like Wal-Mart. Those retailers offer the items which Wal-Mart does not.

This comment was edited on Nov 4, 21:43.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: No subject Nov 4, 2004, 21:32 Brian
 
This is free market capitalism at work. The claims against Wal-Mart (while legitimate) are really rather exaggerated.

Tell you what - you keep your opinion and your confidence in American capitalism, and I'll stick to the facts and the conclusions I draw from said facts. When you have ONE retail store driving out local super-markets, electronics stores AND toy stores... you're losing competition. The less competition you have, the less free your market becomes. Is it really so hard to understand? Is it? And you say that the charges against Wal-Mart Stores inc. is exaggerated - but what're you basing that OPINION on? They sound pretty damned serious to me.

Wal-Mart has improved things for typically low income consumers. They have forced their suppliers into efficency. They have forced their competitors into efficiency.

Yep, Toys R Us is so damn efficient now that it soon won't have any need of employees. But don't worry, once Toys R Us is out of business Wal-Mart will keep the price of toys down... because they just care SO MUCH for the American consumer.

In economic terms, they have driven prices as close to marginal cost as possible. This is A Good Thing.

It would be a Good Thing if it were true... but it isn't. What Wal-Mart is doing in many parts of America amounts to little more than dumping. Every year they gut local toy stores by under-selling on the Big Toy of the year. Since the Big Toy is a big chunk of the profit to be had in a year, Wal-Mart clobbers the other toy stores. But do you think Wal-Mart offers the variety that, say, Kaybee Toys offers? Nooooo. That would be too risky. So Wal-Mart kills off the toy stores by stealing the Big Toy sales and now your choices include ONLY what the hot items are that year... nothing else. Better for the cosumer? I think not.

Any community that desparately doesn't want one can impose local ordinances to restrict their growth - California keeps doing this. While a firm the size of Wal-Mart inevitably has political clout, in comparison to other industries it holds a small market share. But ultimately, if nobody actually wanted to shop there, nobody would. But people do.

Yes, Capitalism is a lot like Democracy - you vote with your money. And we Americans - and it breaks my heart to say this - are a lot like goldfish: We'll eat ourselves to death. To quote Aristotle: "The success or failure of a democracy is dependent on the education of the people." This applies to capitalism as well. Just because people shop Wal-Mart doesn't mean that Wal-Mart isn't evil, nor does it mean that the decision was wise. Just because we elected Bush... well, you get the idea.

By the way, le'me clear something up for you: Wal-mart stores Inc. is the nation's largest company, representing 2.3 percent of the gross domestic product and employing 1.5 million workers. Don't talk to me about small market shares. You're simply misinformed.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: No subject Nov 4, 2004, 21:30 Riley Pizt
 
In areas where Wal-Mart has taken root, it has destroyed three jobs for every two that it creates. And the jobs it creates are inferior to the ones it took away.
First, post the source of your statement. I find your assertion hard to believe especially since I have seen Wal-Marts built in many nascent communities which simply had little or no commercial activity before Wal-Mart came to their areas. In addition, the presence of a Wal-Mart in these areas has attracted additional businesses which has created even more jobs and tax revenue. Second, you can't measure economic impact simply on job loss or gain. Even in areas where Wal-Mart may cost "mom and pop" store retail jobs, it can still improve the economic condition of an area's populace overall by saving them money and giving them more buying power.

Wal-Mart is the largest American importer of Chinese goods! 10% of all Chinese imports to the United States are imported by Wal-Mart.
I don't disagree. The problem with the big discount retailers like Wal-Mart is that they don't sell enough goods manufactured in America.

Nearly all of their 1.5 million American employees are paid below the poverty level and work without benefits.
Paying Wal-Mart employees more is only going to make Wal-Mart customers pay more. It doesn't make a community more prosperous. It simply shuffles money from one group to another. What is needed is an American manufacturing base to support Wal-Mart's retailing.

A publicity stunt is a publicity stunt.
If money from sales of the game is actually given to that charity, then it is no "stunt." My point was that the gesture raised awareness of the charity and your giving it a derogatory label doesn't negate the positive impact.

This comment was edited on Nov 4, 21:47.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. No subject Nov 4, 2004, 21:12 Tim
 
I dare a country to declare war on the United States.

I can't wait for a real eugenics movement, i'm bored by short people.
 
___________________
I'll sell your memories for fifty pounds per year.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: No subject Nov 4, 2004, 21:07 Riley Pizt
 
country is younger than 90% of the established democracies in the world
LOL! Your country may be older than the U.S., but it certainly wasn't a democracy BEFORE the U.S. It is much more likely a democracy because of the U.S.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
45. Re: game needs a collateral damage meter Nov 4, 2004, 21:01 Riley Pizt
 
Hey Riley, you want to liberate some oppressed? Go to Saudi Arabia and look for some women.
Those who truely believe in cultural diversity would respect Saudi Arabia's right to have such a male dominated culture even if they personally find it offensive. I don't agree with that view though.

Oh wait... we lick Saudi Arabia's ass.
I agree that the U.S. is far too tolerant towards Saudi Arabia. After decades of pouring our money into that country by buying its oil, it is coming back to bite us in the ass. Saudi's are using their money (some of which used to be ours) to fund terrorist attacks against us.

This comment was edited on Nov 4, 21:45.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
44. Re: No subject Nov 4, 2004, 20:55 Riley Pizt
 
i bet you like to go to church every sunday, dontcha Riley.
Don't try to "pigeon hole" me. I am not religious at all, nor do I wholly support any political ideology or party.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
43. Re: No subject Nov 4, 2004, 20:51 Riley Pizt
 
China used to be the big bad evil enemy... Remember the jet slamming into a US recon plane et US soldiers being held in china?! How about the Tianan'men Square masacre? Now that China has opened it's markets to US investements no one cares about human rights violations in china.
People still care, but you have to pick your battles and size up your potential enemy. China is the most populated nation on earth with a strong collective nationalistic ideology and a large military to back it up. Unless the United States is prepared to enter a new arms race with China and risk nuclear war, it really has no choice but to look the other way. Unlike the Soviet Union, I don't think the U.S. could cause the collapse of the communist government in China by bankrupting it through military spending.

This comment was edited on Nov 4, 20:52.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42. Re: No subject Nov 4, 2004, 20:43 Riley Pizt
 
France was "liberated" from the Nazis only because the Germans were going hostile against us and our allies.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. Yes, if Germany had not invaded and occupied France (twice; don't forget WWI), it would not have needed liberating.

Had the Germans only attacked eastward against the Soviets
But, that didn't happen now did it? Germany invaded Poland and the rest of Western Europe first. You can speculate on what America would have done had Germany's actions and other events been different, but that won't change history despite your attempts to rewrite it.

China was targetted for nuclear attacks despite being no threat whatsoever
You definitely need to read the history of the Korean War. Attacking into China back in 1952 to stop and repel their invasion of Korea would have led to a unified, free Korea instead of the unneasy stalemate that exists today. North Korea would not be the great nuclear threat it is now if Truman had shown the necessary courage and not handicapped the military so it could complete its objective of driving out the Chinese and its communists surrogates from Korea.

Grenada and Panama? Are you serious?
Yes. The invasion of Grenada rescued U.S. medical students and also stopped the building of a Soviet and Cuban airbase and plans for a deep water submarine port on the island. The invasion of Panama deposed the drug smuggling dictator of Panama Manuel Noriega and also stabilized the restored the Panamanian goverment to democracy so that the security of the Panama Canal wouldn't be threatened when it was turned over to Panana in ten years. Both of those actions were in the security interest of the United States.

Noriega, yet another CIA-trained drug lord
Noriega was trained by the U.S. to protect his country and to fight the drug lords NOT become one. You cannot blame the U.S. because Noriega turned out to be corrupt.

Kuwait? Well sure we liberated Kuwait. Our military was quite literally hired out like some kind of mercenary group.
America liberated Kuwait from Iraq because it was in our national interest. Yes, our allies shouldered a significant part of the financial burden as they should have since they directed benefited from the action.

Too bad the Rwandan Tutsis didn't have 100 billion dollars to send our way, we couldn't be bothered to help anyone
The U.S. certainly could have stepped in to stop such slaughters that have occured in countries like Rwanda, Cambodia, and Tiananmen Square in China. The problem though is at what cost? There would be a price paid in dollars and more importantly in American lives in such efforts, and I don't think the U.S. should use its military unless its vital national interests are threatened.

Haiti? Please, our military was what, 10,000 times larger than whatever opposition they had there...How long were we even there
You miss the point. The U.S. military stepped in to protect and feed the civilians, and stabilize the goverment. How long it took or how difficult the opposition is irrelevant.

Somalia? If my memory serves, after losing 18 men, the GOP bitched at Clinton like crazy to LEAVE SOMALIA because HUMANITARIAN SITUATIONS HAVE NEVER MEANT A DAMN THING TO THE GOP.
The U.S. needed to get out of Somalia because Clinton didn't give the military a clear, proper objective and let them perform it. Instead, he had the military hunting down some warlords and collaborating with others, and then collaborating with ones they were hunting earlier and hunting down ones they were collaborating with. Somalia was a situation where American humanitarian aid was being wasted because there was no stable local government in place to secure and distribute the aid. Warlords were simply stealing it. Without establishing such a government, there was no way to help and protect those who needed to be helped.

The same goes for Bosnia and Kosovo, both wars were TOTALLY OPPOSED BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
The Republican Party controlled Congress at that time. If it did not support sending the troops to Bosnia, they would not have been sent. Republicans like Bob Dole and Former Secretary of State George Shultz lobbied and pushed the effort to send the troops.

Republican Counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke already wrote a damning book
You need to stop reading such self-serving fiction.

Bush administratin's reluctance to even go into Afghanistan.
Bush ordered what needed to be done, and the U.S. military did and is doing a good job overall of carrying it out. No war is easy and problem-free especially when it's fought on unfamiliar, foreign soil. But, overall, both America and Afghanistan are better off today because of our actions.

obsessed with setting up an allied government in the Middle East
America badly needs a strong base of operations in the Middle East. Our economy depends too much on foreign oil not to secure that. Despite having a good business relationship with them, the Saudi Arabians have proven that they are far from being a friend to the U.S. Saudi Arabia is a breeding ground for religious fundamentalism and terrorism, and it has the vast financial resources to support it. America needs an ally in Iraq to buffer against the growing threats in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Saddam was a threat and needed to be removed. If the U.S. did not fight him today, it would eventually be forced to do so, and he would only have gotten stronger with time. It was better to fight Saddam now when he was weaker.

This comment was edited on Nov 4, 21:35.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41. No subject Nov 4, 2004, 20:29 space captain
 
i bet you like to go to church every sunday, dontcha Riley....


"its all an act, the whole fuckin thing is an act - the only thing thats not an act, the only thing that makes reality is death... then they hang it on a cross and kneel down and pray to it..." - Paul Mavrides

______________________________________________
"They come as men, as graven images, as the White Stone, as a whirlwind and as a cloud;
it is a fire unfolding itself, the color amber; they are now in the Heavens looking over thee."
 
______________________________________________
"When the bomb drops it'll be a bank holiday
Everybody happy in their tents and caravans
Everybody happy in their ignorance and apathy
No one realizes until the television breaks down..."

- SUBHUMANS
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. Re: game needs a collateral damage meter Nov 4, 2004, 20:27 PHJF
 
Hey Riley, you want to liberate some oppressed? Go to Saudi Arabia and look for some women.

Oh wait... we lick Saudi Arabia's ass.
/GG oil

------
“The closer you get to being a pro, the closer you can get to the client. The knife, for example, is the last thing you learn. Ok?"
 
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. game needs a collateral damage meter Nov 4, 2004, 19:44 Charlie_Six
 
This game needs a collateral damage meter, counter, or something. Don't get me wrong, US infantry are great and rarely kill any civilians during their fighting. But Iraqi civilian deaths, at the hands of American airpower, which is what you control in this game, is being estimated at 100,000. So, the American military is killing on ACCIDENT, 10-30 times more civilians than Al Qaeda's terrorists killed on PURPOSE. And since the US is purposefully relying on airpower over infantry specifically to avoid high US soldier deathcounts which cause serious political blowbacks, and thus preferring to kill Iraqi civilians through collateral damage, which causes no serious political blowbacks... we should just admit this is how our wars work. So we need that little "civilian death OOPS MY BAD, BUT THANKS FOR BUFFERING MY COMMANDER IN CHIEF'S OPINION POLLS" indicator in this game.

 
Adventures of a video game mercenary
http://virtualmerc.blogspot.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. Re: To Halsy,and the left Nov 4, 2004, 19:33 Riley Pizt
 
Let me guess, this was programmed by a bunch of republican chimps? Does human life have no value?
I think you need to go ask the terrorists BEHEADING aid workers and other civilians in Iraq and elsewhere.


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. Re: No subject Nov 4, 2004, 19:30 Charlie_Six
 
Riley, you seriously need to open some history books, man. France was "liberated" from the Nazis only because the Germans were going hostile against us and our allies. Had the Germans only attacked eastward against the Soviets, and you can read this from American religious leaders, pundits, and politicians of the time, the Germans would've been applauded! You can also read how the Jewish community tried to implore FDR to do something about the Holocaust, but they were dismissed. The Holocaust was irrelevant to the US, especially since some editorialists in the New York Times had already publicly endorsed Hitler's anti-semitic, anti-communist (which he saw as the same thing) activities. As one ambassador can be quoted in an Eleanor Roosevelt book, "How can we criticise the Nazis for what they are doing against the Jews when we have similar opinions towards blacks in our own country?" This, of course, was before the Holocaust was under way, but nevertheless this was why the US didn't give two shits about "liberating the oppressed"(tm). Anyway, US history is absolutely plagued with wars that had nothing to do with liberating anyone, but attacking those we saw as a threat, even while no threat existed, even if this meant interferring in civil wars where our enemy was being supported by the vast majority of its population (*cough* cuba, vietnam, china, chile, zaire). China was targetted for nuclear attacks (go to George Washington University's FOIA site for this one) despite being no threat whatsoever, Korea and Vietnam were invaded to stop a Domino Theory that was totally fraudulent (the Korean war, by the way, was only approved by the UN because Taiwan, yes only representing something like 1% of the Chinese population, was given ENTIRE control of China's Security Council seat). Grenada and Panama? Are you serious? No, you can't be, because last time I checked, military people saw those wars as total jokes, unnecessary, and renamed the "Operation Just Cause" into "Operation Just Because". Heck, didn't Panama involve hunting down Noriega, yet another CIA-trained drug lord? Yeah, the War on Drugs sure was legit.

Kuwait? Well sure we liberated Kuwait. Of course, 90% of the war's bill was payed for by foreign nations. Our military was quite literally hired out like some kind of mercenary group. Check the Department of Defense report on this one, you'll see that 90% of Gulf War One's bill was paid for by our allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Germany. Too bad the Rwandan Tutsis didn't have 100 billion dollars to send our way, we couldn't be bothered to help anyone who couldn't supply us with some "protection money". Oh well, 7 million dead Central Africans later and we're sittin pretty. Next time, Central Africans, you'll not forget to offer Godfather George some money for his protection services.

Haiti? Please, our military was what, 10,000 times larger than whatever opposition they had there. How long were we even there, anyone know? A few months? Yeah. Somalia? If my memory serves, after losing 18 men, the GOP bitched at Clinton like crazy to LEAVE SOMALIA because HUMANITARIAN SITUATIONS HAVE NEVER MEANT A DAMN THING TO THE GOP. The same goes for Bosnia and Kosovo, both wars were TOTALLY OPPOSED BY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. Throw Liberia in there too. Afghanistan? Hah! Republican Counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke already wrote a damning book on the Bush administratin's reluctance to even go into Afghanistan. Before and after 9/11, Bush was obsessed with Iraq, and Clarke's pleads to go after Bin Laden were deprioritised.

And as for Iraq itself, everyone should read up on what these neo-conservative bastards are up to. It's a damn shame the vast majority of Americans went into the voting booths without having even heard about this ideological group who are in total control of our foreign policy. It's a damn shame no one bothered to remember that these neo-cons didn't give two shits about WMDs OR the humanitarian situation, but were obsessed with setting up an allied government in the Middle East, and were willing to come up with any excuse they could think of in order to sell it to the American people.

Bottomline, an American World Police would sure be a fine concept. Too bad we're more like a HIRED GOON than anything remotely resembling an apolitical police force.

This comment was edited on Nov 4, 19:38.
 
Adventures of a video game mercenary
http://virtualmerc.blogspot.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. Re: No subject Nov 4, 2004, 19:07 Charlie_Six
 
I don't think "they voted for Bush" is a fair statement. They (we) OK'ed the war, 75% of Americans as a whole supported it in public opinion polls anyway (most Americans have reversed that opinion). But Bush only won 3-5% percentage points over his opponent, and while marginal victories put Clinton in office as well... i just don't think having a 3% advantage over your opponent should ever translate into "they voted for Bush" comment.

 
Adventures of a video game mercenary
http://virtualmerc.blogspot.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
55 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo