James

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Ah, Retri, that makes more sense. Your earlier comments suggested that informed women in general could not vote for Palin. This makes more sense. Anyway, a lot of conservative commentators have suggested that the candidacy of Palin will somehow woo Hillary supporters. I think that this assertion is inherently sexist, because it implies that women do not think critically about political issues. I am sure there [I]are[/I] people who will vote on the basis if gender or race, but I'd say that the majority if people are interested in actual policies (I'd hope so anyway!) [/FONT]

[quote]That is to say that when the candidates are not balanced, there's no reason to artificially insert balance. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Well luckily, nobody is doing that. I'm just pointing out that while having a single political viewpoint is totally fine, I don't think that should warrant a total dismissal of the opposing side either. I mean I have my own serious doubts about Palin as a candidate, but again, I think it's important to objectively recognize her strengths where they exist. And moreover I see a lot of value judgments about her as a person (similar to Hillary), which don't really add anything constructive to the discussion.[/font] [quote]As for the rest, I do truly believe a McCain-Palin administration would be "incompetent" insofar as they would fail in reaching actual bipartisan solutions with the Congress. Professionally, McCain-Palin would be able to hold the country together. I doubt they'd do considerably worse than Bush. However a lack of failure is not what I want from my presidential administration -- and I'm almost certain their performance would be lackluster. Sorry if that offends you or anyone else, but I'm willing to dismiss the pick of Palin as an insult to American intelligence.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Let's be clear here: I'm not offended by you having a political view. That is not the point. I'm saying that if you outright dismiss the conservative voice and its validity in society, you only reveal [i]your[/i] ignorance. And you automatically insult half of the population, who may have some conservative values or positions. That takes legitimacy away from your arguments. I personally disagree with many conservative positions. So there are areas where we are probably more politically aligned than not. But I'm not expressing a political view here, I'm just saying that none of these debates can get anywhere without the abillity to stand back and see things objectively. In terms of your specific points about a McCain-Palin administration...well, there are a couple of things I disagree with there (for instance, one can't say for certain that they would be unable to be bipartisan, especially when McCain has a particularly strong history of bipartisanship). However, that's really starting to get into value judgments about which team is better. And I don't really think that's worth debating (for me), because I think most people have already set their views pretty clearly. Plus, I don't even know which team I'd choose anyway. So I'm not especially partisan on this issue (and therefore, I would be unable to sway debate one way or the other). All I like to do is add balance where it's due. And in politics it's often due! :catgirl:[/font]

[quote]Indeed, there is little actual value to be found in Palin aside from her being a woman, and her being a political newcomer in this election cycle.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Well that's also a matter of perception. Objectively, Palin has several points of value. One point relates to the fact that she has significant administrative experience in Government (so she would have dealt with the formation and administration of budgets, taxation reform, infrastructure development, etc). And on a more personal level, she has qualities that will resonate with a lot of Americans (i.e. her background, family and social positions). So she certainly has value as a Republican candidate. Sure, I disagree with 90% of her positions, but that's irrelevant to what I'm saying here. I can disagree with someone (even very passionately) yet still respect them and understand their value as a candidate.[/font] [quote]But at the same time I think you should reconsider your belief that Palin is some political "maverick" willing to fundamentally shake up the Washington scene. I doubt she would have the competence to navigate the ins-and-outs of Washington, let alone alter the partisan bedrock that is there. She's a talking point machine, a puppet engineered for the sole purpose of image. She adds no appreciable content to the national dialogue of this election.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I agree that she's added no appreciable content to the election. But as I said, I'm not really interested in debating policy with you. What we're talking about is Palin as a candidate, in terms of her validity - as I said earlier, I would easily disagree with a good 90% of her positions. Also I think you should take a closer look at Palin's career (objectively). I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to say that she's a "maverick" (not my word), but I would say that she's capable of standing up to her own party - and this is rare, yet valuable. And don't underestimate State politics. Becoming Governor and being able to reform elements of budgetary/development policy is certainly not easy and requires more than idle talk. I doubt Palin would have much problem navigating Washington. Whether or not she'd be a good Vice President is an entirely different question (and let's not forget that a VP probably has less administrative decisions to deal with than a Governor anyway!)[/font] [quote]McCain wanted to pick a woman with even less experience than Obama to mop up the female vote in the wake of Democratic division. He was banking on the hope that women would not think rationally on election day and vote for another woman. As I said before, she added nothing appreciable to the ticket aside from her gender.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I don't really think that was what he was thinking (although I do think he has tried to counter the "freshness" of the Obama ticket by incorporating a woman). In terms of experience, as I said, I don't really know why there's much question there. As far as I know, Obama has never administered a Government. That automatically gives Palin significant experience - as I said, do not underestimate the difficulty and challenge involved in that type of work. The experience debate is kind of comical because surely [i]nobody[/i] really has the requesite experience to become President. There are too few similar jobs out there. Most good Presidents grow in the role - they are scarcely "Presidential" prior to it.[/font] [quote]So you're right: woman should be offended with the McCain campaign -- because they did assume women would be irrational and foolish. I also doubt any informed woman would vote for McCain-Palin, but the GOP thought otherwise.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Well that's just flatly insulting for a variety of reasons. One, you're again totally dismissing Palin as a professional (however much you disagree with her). And two, you're basically saying that only ignorant women would vote for McCain/Palin. I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. I'm sure there are plenty of women who [i]are[/i] informed but who happen to disagree with you on policy matters. You're essentially saying that there is no valid political voice other than that which you agree with. That's profoundly unfair to McCain/Palin and to anyone who would ever vote for a conservative political party.[/font] [quote]Edit: I did not call Palin "corrupt," nor did I insinuate that she was. Rather, I doubt her ability to fight corruption. I thought this was more or less explicit in my previous post, but perhaps not.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Well you linked to an article where systemic corruption was implied. So, you know, I'm just calling it like I see it. But in any case, you did say that you would doubt her ability to handle corruption based on your link. I could link you to alternative articles that suggest the opposite. But in the end I'm not here to convince anyone about political points of view. I'm just very tired of the same one-sided debates. I may not agree with Palin, but outright dismissing her is a mistake. I really value balance in politics and it's something we don't often see.[/font]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]Perhaps, but her [arbitrary?] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal][b]dismissal of the Public Safety Commissioner[/b][/url] is disturbing and questionable. To be frank, I would not trust the woman to fight corruption or stand up to detrimental special interests -- this is the same woman who championed the "Bridge to Nowhere" and later tried to play down her involvement. Let's not make her out to be a bastion of integrity and prudent judgment.[/font][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not going to get into a back and forth about this (although I've read into Palin's career prior to your link - and I just read most of your link). I think there are a few points to make. First, I understand the polarization going on here. It's evidenced throughout this thread and across the Internet. Those who are pro-Obama are visciously anti-McCain/Palin and those who are pro-McCain are visciously anti-Obama/Biden. And as a result a lot of mud goes flying through the air, some of it justified and some not. I do think that each candidate has had issues in their past that could be considered either questionable or, at worst, mistakes. I can point to many of these with the Obama/Biden camp as well. However, I think that it's important to remain balanced. You pointed to one instance here - and the instance you pointed to certainly doesn't involve Palin being "corrupt" (that's a very serious charge). Yet you clearly haven't pointed out the instances where Palin has very obviously gone against her party in the interests of fighting said corruption. Also, just as a matter of principle...it's not really fair to take issues like these and then use that as a blanket judgment of a person's character. I don't really see that as justifiable. I mean, you could look at situations where politicians "flip flop" and then somehow say that defines a core element of them as a person, when that isn't really reasonable (or even pragmatic). Anyone can point to negatives with each candidate, or choices they disagree with. But that is hardly the point here. The point I was making earlier still stands - especially as far as expressing [i]why[/i] Palin may be valuable to Republicans. A lot of it is about perception; it's worth remembering that.[/font] [quote]I think all of this Palin nonsense can be sumed up like this: She's a tool, and a gimic for McCain to attract disgruntled Hillary voters; nothing more. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]That doesn't even make sense. And it insults women. People who assume that disgruntled Hillary voters will automatically turn to Palin just because she's a woman are suggesting that female voters don't have any intelligence or strongly held views on issues. Palin and Hillary are ideologically opposed in most areas. I doubt any informed woman would vote for Palin just because of her gender. Also as a general note (not to you, but just overall), I may not necessarily want to vote for Palin...but I see no need to insult her character. The amount of personal attacks I've seen in the media especially are kind of surprising - and it mostly seems okay "because she's a woman". The same was true about Hillary. There seems to be little real policy discussion and a lot of discussion about how people talk or whatever. Makes no sense to me. [/font]

[quote name='Lunox'][font=trebuchet ms]If there is one thing I like about Palin it's that it got so many people intereted in the presidential race again. [/font][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Also, regardless of her politics, I think it's notable that a mother with a large family has been able to progress so far in such a linear fashion. I mean, Mayor...Governor...and then potentially Vice President. For those who are interested in politics as a career, I think that it's sort of relieving to think that you can start as a local Mayor and work your way up. Politically speaking, one thing that Palin does have in her favour (especially as part of the McCain ticket) is her ability to be utterly impartial with members of her own party. There are several examples of her working in an anti-corruption role within the Republican party - and she seems to have no hesitation to upset party members in doing this. So this is something that could reassure people who assert that the Bush Administration only looks out for its own members, even if they are under some kind of scandal or question.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Just ignore it. I'd only worry about it if it really starts to impact you more seriously. We had a similar issue recently with some people who live down the street but it was pretty isolated - it's only happened once. I just tend to ignore it because it ended pretty quickly anyway.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Without commenting on policy, I will say that I did see the debate between Palin and Biden. I was generally impressed with both candidates. I thought that Biden was about as good as I expected (although he held back a little) and Palin was clearly far better than most people were prepared to give her credit for. She certainly showed that she lacks experience and knowledge on certain issues, but having said that, she was able to stay on-target and deliver some critical blows to Biden that he just couldn't counter. Her down-home image also probably helped. All in all I don't think I could say that either Biden or Palin won. I think Palin's job was just to avoid sounding like an idiot. And for the most part, she did that (and actually landed some damn good blows as well - some of her off the cuff exchanges were surprisingly good). At the very least it will make people feel a bit more comfortable with her ability to grow in the role, if she makes it that far. So yeah. The debate was pretty interesting. I enjoyed it more than the McCain/Obama debate.[/font]

[quote]I see it as being similar since the irresponsibility is far more widespread that just an individual company. I may not have specified who, but the fault is more than just the companies in general. As you said, it includes those who have borrowed money when they couldn't afford to pay it back. So the responsiblity goes both ways.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Okay. I had the impression that you were comparing this bailout to a regular bailout of a corporation, when obviously it is quite different. The responsibility does indeed go both ways. I guess, though, that I think it is an oversimplification to suggest that this bailout is another example of corporate failure being somehow rewarded by Government - many of the people who have made mistakes here did so without a malicious or greedy intent. And so, when we always hear about the "greed of Wall St.", it tends to cast a slightly inaccurate and narrow portrait of what's really happening.[/font] [quote]I never said it was only about corporate bigwigs, I said it showed unnecessary favoritism towards those who were key to the disaster in the first place. Obviously they are in a position to have more influence on keeping the market stable so therefore, a greater degree of responsiblity should fall on their shoulders for their part in this. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]And I never said you only said it was about corporate bigwigs. ~_^ My point was that all of the emphasis here is about the greed on Wall Street. Nobody would disagree that those people who have taken outrageous risks with people's money (dangerous risks taken simply for greed) should not be bailed out. But that kind of position oversimplifies the reality. I agree that there are people who should bear more responsibility for this. But that isn't the same as agreeing with Federal Reserve intervention to prevent a massive economic collapse.[/font] [quote]No misunderstood, my reaction that is. I look at my previous posts and they were too vague. I still disagree with bail outs, but then that's because it speaks of a failure to review and restructure regulations as needed to keep this kind of thing from ever happening. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Well, yeah, I mean nobody can disagree with that really. But this kind of thing [i]has[/i] happened. So the question about whether or not we agree philosophically with a bailout is one thing - the question about what we would support in an emergency situation (and whether we'd accept the negative of a bailout as opposed to the negative of potential economic collapse) is another.[/font] [quote]I think you're mistaking our genuine anger over the sheer level of stupidity that has been happening in both the cooperate and federal side of our country as a misunderstanding. Not that some people aren't, it's just that it's easy to only rant about how frustrated we are instead of being more concise with our thoughts. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think I'm misunderstanding your anger - believe me, I understand your anger. I find it amazing that the financial system in America has been allowed to run rampant for so many years - that it has been so unregulated and so unchecked. It's galling and really incomprehensible. And the continued inability of Government to take its proper role in this is inexcusable. Having said that, I do think that a lot of people misunderstand the causes of this crisis. It's very easy to say that it's all about corporate greed and Government mismanagement. And that is certainly mostly true. But it really misunderstands the reasons why a bailout is being proposed. I mean, many people who are voting for this measure are people who, in principle, would never agree with Government bailouts. So why vote for it now? Maybe it's because the stakes are so high. But also, it could be that the consequences of [i]not[/i] doing so could be far worse than not.[/font] [quote]Ironically, I fully understand this since my funding for school and living could be lost if things are allowed to fail and yet I'm still not in favor of it. Unless, like your last bit here says, serious reform is enacted. This is what worries me more than anything. I don't want to see this bail out go through if nothing is going to be done to tighten up regulations and responsiblity, on all sides. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]As I mentioned much earlier in this thread, I'm not aware of the specific details of the bailout package. My comments here are really more about this overall principle and the reaction to it. Also I guess I've tried to bring in some other aspects, like the historical role of the Federal Reserve and the Government. But if I were sitting down and looking at the detail? I would not support any bailout that does not incorporate regulatory reform. That's my own position, personally.[/font]

[quote]I didn't see anyone saying that this was a new precedent, far from it.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Well, this comment implies that we are talking about an unprecedented move:[/font] [quote]But there's the sneaky bit. If the motion had passed, the firms in question would have then been openly government-backed. Essentially—unless I'm making a false connection somewhere—half(-ish) of the mortgages in the country would then be conceivably under the jurisdiction of the Federal government, and that possibility bothers me greatly. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]As do others here. I think the problem is that people are confusing this bailout situation with the general idea of a Government bailing out an individual business that is failing.[/font] [quote]On the contrary, what worries me the most is that in spite of having repeat instances of financial irresponsibility, we keep landing in the exact same situation of turning to the government to "fix" the problem. Only the ticket price of said "save" keeps getting higher and higher. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, but I don't think you are differentiating between this situation and situations where Governments (State or Federal) bail out specific enterprises. Also the financial irresponsibility here is [i]not[/i] just the fault of individual banks. It is also the fault of those in society who have borrowed irresponsibly (including potentially millions of average Americans) as well as Congress and State Governments, which failed to appropriately regulate the financial system in the first place. So it's easy to say that this is just a case of Government bailing out failed companies. But the reality is far more complex than that. And as I mentioned, this is not a typical bailout situation. This area of the economy (banking) is partly presided over by the Federal Reserve. So they have some responsibility in this as well, where perhaps they wouldn't with an individual company.[/font] [quote]I object to this not because I don't want the economy to be stabilized, but because I think this kind of stupidity has been allowed to go on long enough. We need better regulation that keeps companies from engaging in reckless behavior in the name of making profit. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Yes absolutely. You're totally right here. And any new regulations should perhaps involve penalties for those executives who take ridiculous and unlawful risks with people's money. The problem, though, is that a bailout isn't about saving corporate executives. It's actually about preventing a new depression - it's about stopping thousands of average Americans from losing their homes. It's [i]far[/i] more fundamental than simply bailing out some corporate bigwigs.[/font] [quote]I don't know enough to go into full detail, but I assure you, this isn't some shock reaction, this is me and many other Americans saying we've had enough of this kind of nonsense. I do agree with the principle behind keeping things from collapsing, but it's bloated with unnecessary favoritism towards those who were key to the disaster in the first place.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I think the reaction is fundamentally right, because I also disagree with blank check bailouts (though this does not seem to be shaping up that way admittedly). The problem is that the reaction you're displaying here is somewhat misdirected. This bailout will certainly help to save companies, but it's not like the Government is bailing out a failed automaker or box factory - it is providing a buffer for the nation's banking system (which, again, is partly under the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve anyway). Also this isn't just about letting corporate executives fail. It's just not that simple. The executives of these banks are [i]not[/i] solely at fault, even though they played a part. Those at fault include Government, banks, non-bank lenders and individuals among others. There could easily be several hundred thousand people who may lose their houses and/or all of their investments if there is no bailout. These people are ordinary people like you or me - they are largely ignorant about what's going on here. What they did wrong was not malicious, it was mistaken. They borrowed what they [i]thought[/i] they could afford at the time. And unfortunately they were allowed to make those borrowing mistakes by a greedy and/or irresponsible institutions [i]and[/i] a horribly regulated financial system. So, yes, there's blame to go around and a lot of it falls onto those who run the banks and non-bank lenders. But suggesting that this is "just another example of Government bailing out failed business for taking stupid risks" is an enormous oversimplification. The reaction of many in the public reflects their misunderstanding of the issue. I'm sure that even some of the people who could stand to lose everything are still arguing against the bailout, because they aren't aware that not doing so will directly target them. So bailouts are painful, of course. But Governments have to be responsible when they bear some of the blame. And the Federal Reserve has to play its role. What would be truly irresponsible is to do a bailout and then do [i]nothing[/i] to reform the system. Then I'd really be down in the trenches arguing against Government waste.[/font] [quote]You don't fix things by simply handing over a blank check with hardly any regulations whatsoever. If they want a bail out bill to work, it needs to be better drafted to tighten up some of the overly broad powers it would have allowed.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Bingo. And I think this is why the original version failed. I agree with your post 100%, Rach. Understanding the need for a bailout is different than proposing an irresponsible course of action (the latter I totally object to).[/font]

[quote]But there's the sneaky bit. If the motion had passed, the firms in question would have then been openly government-backed. Essentially—unless I'm making a false connection somewhere—half(-ish) of the mortgages in the country would then be conceivably under the jurisdiction of the Federal government, and that possibility bothers me greatly. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]It doesn't quite work that way. If the Federal Government performs a bailout, it does not mean that mortgages become the jurisdiction of the Federal Government as such. It just means that Federal funds are used to keep the banks and lenders afloat where there are defaults on mortgages (there are other examples somewhat separate to this, but it starts getting pretty complex). In this situation you've really got two scenarios I think. One, the Government does not bailout the banks and financial institutions. The end result of that would be multi-faceted. For one thing, it could mean a much higher percentage of families losing their homes. Two, it would mean that the pool of available credit for business would almost completely disappear - it would therefore be largely impossible for most new companies to start up [i]or[/i] for existing companies to extend their lines of credit. And these consequences have further follow on effects. Due to the fact that the American economy is so reliant on credit rather than cash, the implications are massive for existing companies. For instance, General Motors - the world's largest car company and a major employer in the U.S. - is currently making heavy losses globally. It manages to survive in the short term by having an available line of credit to cover losses and fund the development of new products (which can then help it to recover and start making profit again). Right now GM has reached the limit of its available credit. If there is no bailout, you can bet that thousands upon thousands of companies in GM's position would be unable to extend their credit, especially during times of economic downturn where this is necessary. And the end result of that? Simple. Best case scenario is that, in order to survive, these companies lay off workers across the U.S. and globally in an effort to cut costs. We're talking tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of workers. The worst case scenario is that many of these companies collapse completely, which both eliminates their workforce [i]and[/i] which punches massive holes in the U.S. economy (no more tax revenue from these businesses, less available product, less export, etc). Less employment also equates to less income tax, which is a major revenue stream for the Government. So, then, let's assume there's a bailout. What happens then? Well, the current liabilities that are threatening the financial system are temporarily adopted by Government. Government has the capacity to do this because a) it has significant ability to extend its credit and b) it is still capable of running in deficit, where private business is not. As has been mentioned, Government would need to tie strong regulatory reforms to a bailout package (or to implement them later) so as to prevent a repeat scenario in future. [i]However[/i], Government deficit does not have the same horrific implications of a nationwide private sector financial collapse. It's worth noting two other things. First, many companies would be tied to a system where they would need to pay back bailout funds (which are essentially a loan provided on Government credit rather than private credit). Second, Governments not only have a greater capacity to carry deficit, but they also have a reasonable longterm capacity to reduce debt and deficit. Governments can reduce deficits by reigning in spending, but they can also reduce deficits by presiding over growing economies. If an economy is growing and there is high employment, more money pours into Government coffers (much of which can be used to pay down foreign debt). However if the economy dives into recession or depression, not only do individual people around the nation and the world lose out... but Government is not in a strong position to pay its debts. I'm certainly no expert on this - and there is [i]much[/i] additional detail to be talked about - but what I've mentioned here is worthy of consideration. I am, in principle, opposed to Government bailouts of private businesses. However, this situation is a little different both because of the scale of the problem and the implications of inaction. It's also worth pointing out that an element of this crisis was made by Main Street as well (and it's not politically correct to say that, so few do). One of the problems is that people over-extend their own credit (for whatever purpose - but mainly houses) without being able to furnish their debt. This happens in a variety of ways. Either people borrow at their very limit (and therefore fail to account for increasing interest rates, which happen in a slowing economy) [i]or[/i] they falsify (however slightly) their financial information so as to secure credit under favourable terms. When these things happen regularly and include thousands of people, the amount of "bad debt" increases exponentially. And that, in turn, causes financial companies to be unable to write off ever increasing amounts of bad loans. It is also worth mentioning that Federal involvement is actually a cornerstone of the capitalist economic system. That's why America, Australia and many other capitalist economies have central Reserve Banks, which are tasked with stabilizing the economy especially where systematic issues are present (and where catestrophic consequences could ensue). I think that America's Federal Reserve was established after the Depression in the 30's, as a direct result of that crisis. So anyone who thinks that this bailout sets some new precedent as far as Government involvement is incorrect, especially about American economic history. So there's a lot to consider here. It's not just a case of "OMG the Feds in our pockets! Nooo!" There's a reason why very sensible economists and economic conservatives are considering these types of measures. [/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah it makes more sense to record the data over a 24 hour period I think, because of time differences and such (although having one for "most users at once" is probably good too). I wouldn't mind replacing our current record with either (or both) of those systems, if it's doable.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I agree that a longterm solution is needed. My only concern is that if you [i]only[/i] apply longterm changes now, there may be nothing left to save (not to mention that millions of people, in the U.S. and globally, could suffer unnecessarily). Bailouts are always extremely difficult and controversial, but if a bailout is done, it does need to be accompanied by strong longterm legislation.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]It's sort of unfortunate because I think that the Convention Center needs the activity right now. We've opened up events to all, but there's very little interest in it. So I definitely encourage people to continue brainstorming and coming up with ideas. Events do not need to be massive endeavours - they can be simple competitions or challenegs (or even your own awards thread or something). I will definitely be reviewing whether or not we need to keep the Community Events forum in the future and a lot of that will be based on whether people want to use it or not.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I haven't seen the detail of it (in all honesty, I'm not [i]that[/i] interested, haha), but my understanding was that the Republicans were the ones who blocked it. Maybe that's just second-hand reporting coming in (it's likely an over-simplification too, since it's hard to capture this complex issue in a three second soundbyte).[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]The problem here isn't the free market system, it's simply that America made a big mistake by deregulating its banking system to the extent that it has. Also the percentage of sub-prime loans in the U.S. is far too high. And on top of that, the U.S. banking system is about as clear as mud - each State has its own regulatory system and there is no clear Federal context for that. The availability of easy/cheap credit is also a big problem. The United States is [i]far[/i] too credit dependent and not nearly focused enough on liquidity. This situation will obviously affect other economies, but in Australia, we are well-placed. Why? Because Australia has the most-effectively regulated banking system in the world. There are several independent Federal bodies that regulate the industry while also providing substantial free market access. I think (from a lay point of view) that America needs to a) create stringent Federal regulation to ensure greater transparency and back-up for bad loans and b) it needs to unify the banking system under a set of Federal regulations that override the State system. As far as the bail out goes... I think it's probably necessary unfortunately. It's easy to say "don't do it", but people don't realize that a bail out doesn't save the executives of these banks - it protects the mass market (i.e. ordinary people). Unfortunately many of these people should not have gotten credit in the first place [i]or[/i] should have only been approved for lesser amounts that they could manage. Also much of that credit, from what I understand, is largely unsecured. That's pure madness. Onselling a mortgage to another business is ridiculous - if someone can't pay their mortgage, the bank needs to have security so that it can recover its debt as much as possible. But a bail out [i]without[/i] substantial regulatory reforms will not work longterm. The two must be tied together, otherwise this will just happen again.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Okay so I've got a new post up now. Sorry for the delay, guys! I'm really on the cusp of a new Landmark, but I felt that I needed to post a little bit more before going ahead with that. So my [i]next[/i] post will introduce the Landmark. This post is still part of the System Error Landmark. As you can see, things are getting crazy again. My post took place over several stages of the day, so please don't feel compelled to only post about the current emergency - feel free to write about whatever time period you like in your posts. As mentioned, my next post will introduce a new Landmark. I expect it will be the second-last Landmark in the RPG.[/font]

<table width="572" border="0" align="center" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1"><tr><td bgcolor="#909090"><table width="100%" border="0" color="#909090" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0"><tr><td valign="top" bgcolor="#909090"><table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="15"><tr><td valign="top" bgcolor="#E3E3E3"><font color="#202020" size="2" face="tahoma">[center][img]http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9978/vboavatarey3.jpg[/img] [img]http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Arichan16/arthur.jpg[/img][/center] Arthur's first class room was stunning. Zahir had been calling it a [i]room[/i], but it was really more of a small [i]house[/i]. It sat at the foot of an enormous synthetic mountain, where it was enveloped by a small gully. A creek flowed past on one side and the flawless green grass around it was bordered by trees. From here, it was impossible to detect any other sound, despite the fact that the other first class cabins and houses were not far away. Zahir sat on the edge of the bed in what was a fairly spartan room. There were all of the usual luxuries provided by the Von Braun hospitality staff, but it didn't seem that Arthur had brought very much of his own belongings. Zahir noticed a small travel bag resting against a desk at one end of the room. There were papers sitting in neat piles on the desk, as well as a couple of books. Upon their arrival at the house, Arthur had gone straight for the bathroom. The door was slightly ajar and steam billowed out into the bedroom. Zahir was waiting for his turn; he did not want to go [i]anywhere[/i] before showering and changing his clothes. Now that the ordeal on the outpost was over, he felt like he hadn't showered in days. Zahir lay back on the bed, with his hands behind his head. He closed his eyes and cast his mind back over the last twenty four hours. After reading conspiracy theory magazines and tabloids for years, it seemed incredible that the stories were actually true - or, at least, that the reality was not terribly different than what had been reported. In fact, the reality was a lot stranger. Alien beings on the Moon? Test tubes and alien experiments in space? How did it all link together? There was a major piece of the puzzle missing and Zahir suspected that it related to the Shirota Strain. Arthur had mentioned it, but he also pointed out that the original documentation about the strain had been lost. Perhaps he was looking for it. But why aboard the Von Braun? His thoughts began to drift and muddy. He thought of all the people he had met during the journey. Their blurry faces ebbed and flowed in his mind's eye. For a brief moment his mind cast back to the little apartment in Washington Prime. It was an ever-so-brief flash of images; his bed, a pile of magazines and cigarette smoke. This time, though, he did not think of Khalid. He imagined that billowing steam pouring out into the room, shrouding everything in gray. Arthur's face came through the steam toward him and their lips met. 'Hey.' 'Hey, Zee, wake up! Did you feel that?' The ceiling slowly came into view. Zahir blinked slowly. He felt hazy and light-headed. Arthur's face came into view. He was dressed in a new outfit. He had refreshed his cologne. Zahir sat up and looked around. Nothing seemed out of the ordinary. 'What's going on?' he said as he rubbed his eyes. 'I'm not sure,' muttered Arthur, 'maybe nothing. But I'm sure I felt movement...like a mild earthquake. You didn't feel it?' Zahir shook his head. 'I fell asleep. I'm sorry.' Arthur smiled. 'Don't apologize, Zee. You should have your shower now though, because I think something is happening. We shouldn't feel ship movements from here. I am worried that something is wrong.' <hr> [center][img]http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h167/Desbreko_Fanclub/VBO/avatar1_crew.gif[/img] [img]http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h167/Desbreko_Fanclub/VBO/maul.jpg[/img][/center] Captain Lazar Sorokov sat behind an ornate oak desk at the end of a sizable office. The end of the office was comprised entirely of a clear panel, which revealed an endless field of stars beyond. The Von Braun's Chief Engineer, Jedidiah Pennback, sat in a chair on the opposite side of the desk. He wrung his hands nervously. Sorokov was leafing through a large binder with one hand. 'Tell me, Chief, what do we know of the system error now? Your team has been working on this problem for hours.' Pennback's eyes wandered around the room. Sitting there, with all that space around him and that enormous star field in the background - it was intimidating, to say the least. 'Truthfully, we are still at a loss,' replied Chief Pennback honestly. 'We have performed hundreds of diagnostic tests already and we have rebooted the navigation computer several times, but with no luck.' 'So, tell me again, what [i]exactly[/i] is the problem?' Sorokov glanced up over the spectacles that sat on the end of his nose. Pennback wrung his hands even more tightly. 'When we first announced this error, Captain, the variance between our course and the ship's real trajectory was approximately point zero three degrees. At the speed we were traveling, this was not a serious error - we were able to correct it manually.' He took a deep breath. 'Now, the variance is approximately twenty three degrees. And we are having trouble managing the engines.' The room fell silent for a moment. Sorokov removed his glasses and sat back in the tall captain's chair. 'So what, exactly, does this mean? I assume the Von Braun is now under manual control. An ongoing variance of more than twenty degrees would put us seriously off course, especially if it was maintained for hours rather than minutes.' Pennback felt a bead of sweat roll down his forehead. 'Er, well, that's the problem Captain... we do not have manual control right now. The ship is not responding to any manual override commands. Our first thought was simply to stop her dead in space so as not to go too far off course, but...' 'But what, Chief?' Sorokov leaned on his elbows and glared at the Chief Engineer. 'But...Sir, she won't stop.' <hr> [center][img]http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/4489/avatar2crewcd2.gif[/img][/center] 'You seemed upset the other morning,' said Meryl between sips of wine. She tilted her head to the side, her large brown eyes glistening in the candle light. 'Geeze Meryl, I'm just doing my damn job. You know that.' Ed Barker sat opposite her. A cigar was nestled between his index and middle fingers, as per usual. The WPNN journalists were sitting at the edge of a crowded restaurant, on Deck Two. It was called [i]The Trojan[/i]. Their small, round table was situated at the very edge of the restaurant, directly in front of a large rectangular portal. Ed always had this table, even when he was by himself (which was usually the case). Meryl wondered why Ed had invited her to dinner that night. Perhaps he felt guilty about pressing her on her interview with Sorokov, she thought. In all reality, there was no way she'd ever get an admission that the Captain didn't know what was on the lowest deck of the ship. Surely Ed knew that. What was the point of asking, anyway? Ed couldn't [i]really[/i] believe the crazy theories, could he? Those theories about something sinister lurking below and the maiden voyage of the world's first space hotel simply being a cover. It just didn't make sense. The appetizers had just left the table and now they were waiting for their main course. Their conversation had so far been difficult and forced, largely due to Meryl's frequent desire to point out Ed's unfairness (and his ability to avoid getting into an argument). Eventually Meryl called a truce. The sly grin on her face made Ed laugh; she was obviously enjoying making him uncomfortable. 'There you are,' chuckled Meryl. 'See? Life isn't so serious! You need to get your eyes off those reels now and then, Ed. It isn't good for you.' Ed smiled. It was a genuine, warm smile. Smiling definitely suited him. It softened his slightly hard edge and made him immensely attractive. He finished off his glass of wine and petted his stomach. 'Ugh, I think I've had too much.' Meryl raised an eyebrow. 'Ed, you've had one glass! Don't tell me you're a featherweight.' Ed puffed on his cigar thoughtfully. 'I had a little nip of scotch before you came down here.' 'Oh?' 'Yeah, I thought I might need alcohol to get through dinner with you.' They both roared with laughter. Meryl dabbed her eye with a napkin. 'You're an idiot,' she said flatly. 'But if I were you I'd probably have had a little something too.' Ed winked and then held up their empty wine bottle, while gesturing to a nearby waiter. 'Actually,' he said as he put the bottle back in the cooler, 'I felt a little light-headed earlier. When I first came off the elevator I was sure I felt the whole room move. Maybe work is getting to me after all.' Meryl brought the wine glass to her lips and paused before taking a sip. 'Really? That's strange. I felt it too, when I was getting ready earlier. My bathroom moved. It was only momentary, but it was enough to cause me to smear my lipstick. That's why I was a little late... I didn't want to come down looking like I'd tried to get made up on a roller coaster or something.' Ed's smile faded slightly. He looked out toward the endless sea of stars. 'What is it?' asked Meryl as she too finished off her final glass of wine. 'Well, I'd been speaking to some other press at the bar before you arrived...there's some suggestion that the ship is even further off course. Do you think that movement earlier had anything to do with it?' Meryl considered this for a moment. 'I don't know,' she said finally. 'Earlier they'd said the ship was only slightly off course and that it would be corrected any moment. If we've been off course for hours...' They looked at each other across the table. The waiter arrived with a fresh bottle of wine. Ed waved his hand at the boy, shooing him away. 'Perhaps we had better return to our quarters and get a cam ready. We might need to follow this up.' <hr> [center][img]http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9978/vboavatarey3.jpg[/img] [img]http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/Arichan16/arthur.jpg[/img][/center] Zahir stood at the bathroom sink. The towel was wrapped around his waist and his hair was dripping wet. Long, dark curls fell over his eyebrows. The door opened slightly, startling him. It was Arthur. 'Oh, I'm sorry,' stammered Arthur. 'I thought you were--' 'It's okay,' said Zahir. 'I just got a fright, that's all. I'm still feeling a little strange after what happened to us...' Arthur nodded. He lingered in the doorway. His eyes seemed to be trying to remain fixed on Zahir's, but they occasionally darted downward. 'Can I use this?' Zahir pointed to a brush on the counter. 'Of course,' said Arthur. 'It's not like I have any use for it.' He rubbed his head and grinned. Zahir laughed - he felt strange, it seemed like he had not laughed in a long time. 'I'll be ready in a moment,' said Zahir. 'Just need to throw some clothes on after I've brushed my hair. What should we do after that?' 'Don't you have a shift starting soon?' Zahir's heart sank. 'Oh, yes, I forgot...' 'Never mind,' said Arthur. 'I will come and visit you. You can make me a cocktail. How about it? We'll catch up later.' Zahir smiled. 'Sounds good to me. I'd better be quick then, I've got to change into a fresh uniform.' Arthur nodded and began closing the door. 'Zahir, I--' Zahir looked up expectantly. Arthur's eyes wandered over him. This time he did not seem to force himself to focus only on Zahir's face. 'Never mind. We'll talk later. I don't want to make you late.' The floor seemed to move ever so slightly. Arthur remained in the doorway. 'Zee! Did you feel that? It happened again!' Zahir nodded and put the brush down on the counter. It rolled off and fell to the floor with a thud. 'What is happening, Arthur?' They could hear a sound outside. The light began to change. A deep red hue fell over the room. Zahir was in autopilot, he ran to the other side of the bathroom, removed his towel and slipped on a clean set of clothes. When he approached the doorway, Arthur was still standing there. His face seemed blank in the red light. 'What's happening?' Zahir's voice shook slightly. He knew Arthur probably had no answers, but he somehow felt that Arthur might know [i]something[/i]. 'I don't know, Zee...I'm sorry. We'd better leave the house and go to the lobby. Maybe there's an emergency. Come on, let's go!' Arthur reached out. Zahir took his hand immediately and followed him through the bedroom and out of the house. They ran, hand-in-hand, across the grass toward the trees. Everything felt so strange. The sky above them flashed between light and dark red, on and off, over and over again. The clouds were gone and the water in the creek had stopped flowing. It seemed like everything was shutting down. Suddenly, a calm, female voice became audible somewhere in the distance. It echoed around the deck: [i]"All guests, please make your way to your nearest emergency access point and wait for further instructions. Walk, do not run. Please do not panic. If you are not near an emergency access point, please assemble at your nearest lobby. Thank you."[/i] 'Where do we go? Where's the nearest access point here?' cried Zahir. He had to raise his voice, as an alarm began sounding just after the female voice spoke. 'Lobby!' cried Arthur. 'It's the closest!' As they ran, Zahir glanced upward at the large screens that surrounded the inner cylinder of the ship. He only caught a couple of minor glimpses at them, but they seemed to be showing a diagram of the Von Braun with a long red line protruding from its hull. There was an arrow at the end of the line. And there was a planet just near the head of the arrow.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></td></tr></table>

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think Gavin was pretty clear why he closed the thread. I personally wouldn't mind it staying open (given that the thread could be used for the members involved to plan for the record and to discuss it with each other). But as has been pointed out, we really need to find a way to roll back that "most users ever" record, otherwise it's just not going to happen. If you want the thread to be re-opened, I would suggest sending a PM to Gavin himself. If you intend to use the thread for ongoing discussion about how to break this record, then I personally don't see a problem, but it's really Gavin's choice at this point. So yeah, you might be better off making your case directly to him. Other than that, as has been said, I think the reason for the thread closure was pretty clear.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Eek, sorry, you will have to bypass me this time. Kimmeh, I think you're up.[/font]

[quote]Someone's desire to tattoo themselves can very easily be linked to psychological issues like low self-esteem.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I don't really think I need to add to what has been said already, but this statement is [i]obviously[/i] utterly false. Saying that tattoos can be "very easily" linked to psychological issues like low-self esteem does not make it so. I think it also lumps everybody with tattoos into a single group without regard for their individual personalities. Generally it is not a good idea to do this. I'm sure you wouldn't like being thrown into a single group and having all sorts of assumptions made about you. [i]You[/i] may not like tattoos, but don't turn your personal view into some kind of objective fact. Bad idea. Better to just state your personal view and point out why you wouldn't be interested in tattoos. Nobody would have an issue with that, but people do tend to take issue when they are basically marginalized or when someone suggests that they are mentally ill.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think DK64's big problem was that there was just too much collecting to be done. And on top of that the gameplay was extremely redundant. But the actual controls were okay and I think the level design wasn't too bad. It was just nothing terribly new. And I think BK was much more imaginative in every sense. As far as worst games go, I'm having trouble remembering (maybe I've just blocked out the horrible memories). I think the first game that comes to mind was Mortal Kombat 4. I had bought the PlayStation version and it is the [i]only[/i] game I have ever returned on the same day I bought it. I played for about 20 minutes and then went straight back to the store and asked for a refund. lol So that's pretty bad. I haven't done that with any other games, even bad ones.[/font]

[quote]Saying someone had to have been drunk doesn't really address it very well. =P[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Oh yeah, you're right. I guess I just didn't want to outright say "drunk, hallucinating, attention seeking, etc". Maybe it's mushrooms and not beer that fuel these stories. Who knows. In all seriousness though, I am sure that people actually see things that are technically UFOs (i.e. unidentified objects...that fly). I know I've seen weird lights and things in the sky at times that seem totally impossible to explain. I guess the main point though is that I don't automatically attribute those phenomenon to alien life/spacecraft. To me that's a major jump in logic, ignoring many more plausible possibilities along the way.[/font]

[quote]There is nothing in the Christian religion that states anything against Aliens, or that we're the only beings God has created. If the Christian God does exist, that is.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think you know your Bible very well, in that case. Dismissing the relevance of faith when it comes to discovering alien life seems very short-sighted to me. Faith deals with existence and the nature of life itself. So it is far from trivial in this discussion. Anyway I agree with you that most aliens are probably not sophisticated enough to travel to Earth anyway. It's probably likely that most alien life is simpler than human beings (although maybe [i]we[/i] are the simplest form - [i]aha![/i] :catgirl:) As far as abductions and stuff go, I do side with most people here in that I really doubt they've ever happened. I think when some people talk about being probed they're actually recalling a drunken night in a sleazy motel, rather than the interior of a space ship.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Okay, no worries. I don't think anything in this thread has related to opposition of Christianity - so no need to worry about that. I just think we have been having a frank discussion about the potential implications of alien life in general. Anyway, on to a new point. I was thinking about this thread and I realized that we've spent so much time talking about whether or not aliens actually exist. If you think about aliens in popular culture, there seems to be a lot of stuff related to them being aggressive or war-like. Is that just a reflection on us? I almost think that if aliens contacted us (should they be sufficiently advanced), they would probably be like nothing we can imagine. And if they had a particular agenda, I think it would surely have to be peaceful - or at least I think there'd be a bigger chance of that. What do you guys think?[/font]

[quote]I, someone who still holds to creationism, am not a "serious" body, in all of my evaluations, or that because there isn't an organization with a substantial enough presence in the view of the opposition (organizations do exist, mind you), that the people who support the idea have ceased walking the Earth. Though you are obviously trying to avoid "personal attacks", you haven't done the best job in removing any bias or discrimination. However, I will deal with your statements directly.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]My comments were not directed at you specifically, they were directed at pseudo-scientific "Creation Science" organizations primarily. I am not really interested in getting into a debate about creationism itself here, for two reasons - firstly because my interest is purely in the empirical/scientific basis for it. It would be like trying to debate empirical aspects of the moon landing and whether or not it was a hoax; debating a logical fallacy has no real purpose. And secondly, I don't really think that it is my job to convince anyone to believe differently than they presently do. Nor is it really the purpose of this thread (in fact, nobody in this thread can really debate about the existence of aliens because I think we'd all agree that we just don't know). As a side note, it's not really a good idea to suggest that I'm being somehow biased or discriminatory when I'm only stating commonly-accepted facts. Even if you don't believe in what I'm saying, it is hypocritical to then go off on your own one-sided tangent after criticizing me for apparently doing so. Please take note of that. So, for the thread itself...[/font] [quote]he presence of absence of aliens does little with the validity of the creation, or of Christianity in general. What is being misunderstood is the emphasis around man and mankind. The opposition believe strongly that somehow, if there is a single-celled organism in some obscure corner of the galaxy, that there is no God (capitalized to emphasize a proper noun). Provisions, interpretations, and understandings from texts leave more than enough room for the presence of life, and even intelligent life. Hence, why I cannot disprove the existence of extraterrestrials.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]You do make one not-insignificant assumption here though (and I believe it is an incorrect one). You state that the "opposition" (opposition to what, exactly?) believe that if a single cell organism exists on a planet other than Earth, that this disproves God. Yet nobody here seems to be suggesting that. If you have gleaned that message from [i]my[/i] statements, then you have misinterpreted them. My earlier point was simply that if we could prove the existence of extra-terrestrial life (something that has not yet occurred), it could have profound religious implications for many. This does not mean that people would stop believing in God. It simply means that many people may reassess their thoughts on a variety of issues - it could be the way they view the Bible, or God, or even their general philosophy on life. That was really all I was saying. It isn't about proving or disproving God as such; that's a bit of a red-herring as far as this discussion goes. Having said that, I'm sure there are people who have a theological view on the concept of aliens, which is something you have illustrated in your post. Nothing wrong with that. One final modding-related point about this thread though:[/font] [quote]And so, the debate takes the course which I have seen before, and predicted it would happen. It ceases being about aliens, and the attention immediately shifts towards religion.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]It was always about aliens until your post. You have now attempted to make it about religion. And you've done so by asserting a position that I don't think anyone here is really subscribing to in the first place (my last post just clarified what I meant by "ID" to 13thman). So, by all means, please continue to discuss your thoughts on aliens. But let's not make this a religion-dominated thread. I had thought my earlier comments about keeping things on-topic were pretty clear, but it is worth reiterating this point.[/font]