IF you hade this rule you would also have a really good way of implementing inland airfeilds in the game.
normally aircraft on inlands can attack land units like they are land based airfract, but once you build an airfeild on the inland, they attack as if they were on a carrier
If there is going to be a zombie set, how about a flying saucer/foo fighter set. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter
-Military terms are generally purposefully misleading so I understand how marksmen might sound good but it is actually the lowest qualification in the Marine Corp for rifle. If Oswald has gotten below 190 he would not have qualified, he would have failed. He was a radarman, not infantry. I have a friend who is a Marine, who qualified expert and served in a scout sniper platoon. He generally dosn’t have any opinions on politics or history, but he says no human could do what the Warren Commission claims Oswald did. If you can show where Oswald trained to become a crack shot after his time in the marines, I’d be interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marksmanship_Badge_(United_States)
-its a long way up the road for a fragment to travel. Without any data I could see it either way, so we’ll just say your right that it hit by the car and flew up the road hitting the bystander.
-Whats the name on the eye witnesses you are referring too? I know there is at least one person who did say they saw Oswald from the street, I don’t consider that clear IDing of Oswald though since its too far away, plus other witnesses saw other men with rifles near the top of the Book Depository building, with descriptions that differed radically from that of Oswald(including a black guy, its Texas though so maybe they were just being racist). I have never heard of anyone within the Book Depository building IDing Oswald as anywhere but the second or first floor at the time of the shooting.
http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/lunchroom_encounter.htm
If you care to know, my alternative theory to the “Oswald alone Theory” is it was the the National Security State http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947 . 5% of JFK assassination witnesses died unnaturally in the 14 years following the assassination. The chance of this happening by chance is 1 in 700 million trillion. Furthermore the most deaths occurred during the two years of major government investigations into the the assassination, 1964 and 1977. http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig14/charnin1.1.1.html
Only the National Security State has the power to kill the president and make sure many of the important witnesses have “unfortunate accicidents”.
1 shooter, or 3 shooters, Oswald or not Oswald, is irrelevant.
The real question is WHY JFK was shot. That then answers the rest of the questions.
I’ve done alot of research on this subject, watched dozens of documentaries, and read several books, with many different perspectives. There’s one item in particular however… that stands out to me as the most legitimate motive, with the most legitimate supporting evidence.
**The Day after Kennedy’s Burial, LBJ issued executive order #273 which reversed Kennedy’s order # 263 **(#263 was to abstain from taking action in Vietnam).
It was the first order LBJ issued as president, and in simpler terms - began the war in Vietnam.
I know that many of you understand that the arms industry in North America is a trillion dollar industry.
But did you know that prior to his death JFK consistently maintained the stance that he was not going to get into the conflict in Vietnam? This was non-negotiable.With trillions of dollars of interests at stake, over many vested groups, coupled with a real fear of communist “domino effect”, I believe that a small group of people essentially manufactured a coup, and made it look more like a simple and rogue assassination. Some of these people (perhaps even Oswald) were probably tricked in the wrongful belief that somehow what they were doing was the right/patriotic thing to do.
That’s the why as I see it. As for the who… well, that’s alot more complicated.
Gargantua is absolutely correct.
Read Rush to Judgement by Mark Lane. Mark Lane exposed the Warren Commission as a fraud in 64’, why does anyone believe it fifty year later? Oswald scored a 191 on his marine rifle qualification, that is two points above FAILING. His sergeant said he was a horrible shot aswell. Stranger than the second bullet that caused seven wounds, is the first bullet that hit a bystander way up the road, so according the to Warren Commission Oswald must have not even been aiming at Kennedy’s car for the first shot. N one saw Oswald shoot the president or put him anywhere near the sixth floor, rather he was found by a police officer a minute after Kennedy drove by buying a coke on the second floor. He was more thirsty than commie.
Too much CGI, plus pointless love story and retarded song in the trailer. I think I’ll skip this and watch Stalingrad again.
Armored Trains? They seem pretty important.
combined with the HBG rail piece, it could be like a defensive tank that can only move on rails.
http://www.businessinsider.com/world-war-two-armored-trains-2011-11?op=1
The CIA and State Department support Islamic terrorists to counter Iranian, Russian, and Chinese influence in the Middle East and Central Asia, while at the same time the US military fights a “War on Terror” in which it is supposedly fighting against Islamic terrorism. CIA/State Department have been supporting international Islamic Ts for more than 40 years.
as a matter of historical(not political) information search Operation Gladio and Sibel Edmonds for more information on why the US foreign policy is hypocritical in this way.
From my reading I believe its a myth that Hoover supported austerity. http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp122.pdf
Do you know about the depression of 1920? http://mises.org/daily/3788 The government reduced taxes and spending resulting in a very quick recovery. Its a myth that government can solve economic problems. I agree with Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which views recessions as the result of government induced credit expansion. http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Austrian_Business_Cycle_Theory
One reason corporations may not be expanding in the US is because our corporate taxes(which is factored in to prices so it is paid by consumers, not corporations) are the highest in the world.
Instead of the government taxing you to pay people to do unproductive work so they can then buy your goods or services, what if the government didn’t tax you and you used that money to expand your business thus employing more people who could then afford to buy your goods or services?
I read the article you posted, we have very different views on taxes. I think the IRS/income tax should be abolished. I also disagree with utilitarianism, value is subjective. There is no way to objectively measure the values of two people much less a whole nation.
I am not rich, but I have enough knowledge to know that more centralized control over the economy is not a solution to anything and never has been. And inflation always hurts the poor the most.
Taiki is mistaken about it not being good economics. The US ‘defaulting’ on its debt if the debt ceiling is not raised would be bad economics. A government shut down would be bad economics.
That this even needs to be a discussion is bad economics and bad governance. Until this past year the raising of the debt ceiling was a routine act. And if intransigence (and petulance from my POV) will not allow to be performed what has always been a routine house-cleaning matter for the government and this is what is necessary to allow things to continue functioning normally it should be done.
A default and a government shut down would be great economics!!!. Instead of resources being distributed by bureaucrats and politicians, that wealth would return to the people and individuals could distribute the resources as they see best. When individuals determine production and consumption with their own resources they are much wiser than a bureaucratic handling funds that don’t belong to him. If a bureaucrat or politician spends money poorly, its no skin off his back. If an individual spends money poorly he could end up with no personal wealth at all. So the more money we let the government take from us, the poorer we will be. In fact governments, may intentionally make poor economic decisions in order to cause a crisis, which it can then use as an excuse to extract more wealth from the host population.
I understand that until recently increasing the debt-ceiling was considered something routine, but what is the point of a debt-ceiling if when ever you reach it you go over it? That is not much of a ceiling. I thought the idea of a ceiling was that it would be a limit on how much the government could go into debt. Of course politicians say its somehow “responsible” to go into more debt which is basically doublespeak since its irresponsible to go into more debt that cannot be paid back.
At any rate the US will default, either by actually defaulting or by inflating the dollar to the point it is worthless. The world will not buy US treasuries at 0% interest rates forever, eventually those rates will rise. So we might as well default now and get it over with before it gets any worse.
Also, notice that if they were to follow my advice above, that would not create inflation either, because it would wipe out existing debt but NOT allow those debtors to take on new debt. Hence no new money enters the economy and all it does is wipe out the digital “money” that was spawned out of thin air when they opened up you line of credit or whatever.
I don’t understand the math on how there is no inflation, at the very least there is a massive redistribution of wealth. I do like your idea’s on what should happen to bankers and politicians though :-D