KaRRiLLioN

Good stuff, Certa. Denoir, I'm certain that your bias is due to you growing up in a society where everything was provided and paid for. Just because we value the individual and you value the collective doesn't mean that our ideology is outdated. As goob pointed out in his post, liberal compassion has helped him with his hospital bills. At the same time it is depriving retired folks of their homes, and the taxes are forcing people to move elsewhere. When the gov't taxes to provide for the high cost of living and medical expenses, it harms others. What part of the "collective" should benefit the most? If you are taking from one to give to another, I can tell you that there will always be someone getting the stinky end of the stick. As I've said, a centralized gov't is good for some things, so long as it does not interfere in the functioning of society. What you have in Sweden is a gov't that touches every aspect of life. From the fact that there is no true private property ownership, i.e. people can go on your land so long as they don't destroy it, to the fact that you are taxed so much, that you might as well not get a paycheck. In fact that is what it will eventually take to sustain the gov't. Who benefits the most from a powerful gov't? The public? No, the politicians in power. This is what the liberals wish to have over here. They already control the votes of those on Welfare. Essentially they are bought and paid for votes. Unfortunately Republicans are walking the same road, just not as quickly. The prescription drug "benefit" is a perfect example. It's like saying "Old people, vote for us!!" Instead of sticking to principles, they wish to buy votes, thus running up the immense gov't budget. In Sweden you have 9 million people. In the US it's over 300 million. I cannot possibly imagine how much larger our gov't would have to be to provide the same social services that Sweden has. Everyone would have to be taxed at 80%! Dismissing Libertarianism as an "old west" ideology is just avoiding the facts. It made the US what it is today.

It's called moderation. I don't want a massive gov't handling everything, nor do I want anarchy. It's not a zero sum game. If the existence of a federally controlled military means "wasteful" to you, then I'm assuming that you think that all non-social spending is wasteful? Our constitution provides for certain things, and it makes more sense to have a federally controlled military. What doesn't make sense is trying to make sure every single person has a chicken in their pot through the gov't. Why is it so hard of a concept to grasp that certain things are better centralized, and others aren't?

No. Life has no guarantees. Necessity is the mother of invention. If some people didn't have to worry about eating, etc. then they'd be a drag on society. I just don't believe government is a cure-all for what ails us. There are plenty of private organizations, like churches and charities, that are willing to help. Yes, I know charitable organizations don't always work, but there's a lot less red tape to go thru to get a square meal, plus you have a choice of where to go for help. I come from a family of farmers and schoolteachers. One side of the family is from North Dakota (up near Canada), the other from Georgia (SE US). Both sides were dirt-poor, but worked their rear-ends off to make ends meet. Today both sides are doing well. Not rich, but better than average. I'm not a drag on the family, unlike one of my younger sisters. I just have seen first-hand the mentality of those who think they can get by with doing nothing. It's sad.

Yes, but your assumption about gov't protecting everyone is also based upon a faulty assumption: That gov't will always care and do what is best for the public. Experience shows that this is not the case. Think about it, companies who want your money will pander and treat you well to get your business. A fancy restaurant will, for example, not ignore and treat you poorly if they want your business. Most companies, at least the ones that want to survive, will work for your money. (There are always exceptions.) The gov't doesn't need to worry about that. It has the force of law to take your money and can draft your bank account or garnish your wages to get your money. Customer Service is not a top priority. The larger the gov't, the worse it can be. Many people who work for the gov't at these lower-level clerical jobs are rude and cannot stand dealing with people. They're only working there because they can't get a job where they have to be nice and perform well. Also imagine if the gov't became completely corrupt or tyrranical. I think it's safer to have a smaller centralized gov't rather than a massive one that tries to take care of every need. I understand that the playing field is not level, and I don't assume it is. Some of us will always have to work harder than others, but that's a reality of life. I don't think complicating it with a massive gov't will solve any of that. It will probably end up making things worse.

I agree with military spending because it is one of the constitutional mandates of the Federal gov't to provide for it. Â I consider good defense to be a vital part of infrastructure. Â As I've said before, I believe in limited government, not the abolishment of it. Â Society should not be interfered with to a huge extent by gov't. This is why I completely disagree with most of the cultural legislation that both the left and right try to pass. Â I also disagree with the "War on Drugs" and think that many controlled substances should be legalized and taxed accordingly, rather than have billions wasted on it, not to mention the loss of life. I think that when Gov't interferes with society, it can wreak havoc with the fabric of it, not quickly, but slowly over time.

Maybe this thread should be retitled "EU-US GDP Analysis from a Swedish analogical viewpoint" [edit] I like Ikea, btw. Nice furniture.. ;) You know, I'd almost be willing to vote for Nader just to get the major parties out of the White House. Â Unfortunately his positions on taxes are out of line with mine. I wish there were someone running who would eliminate corporate subsidies, reform/remove Social Security, and reform Welfare and Medicaid to reasonable levels. Â Immigration controls also need a total revamping. Believe me, I've had to deal with the Federal Gov't on a host of issues since my wife is Russian. Â I've had the extreme pleasure of dealing with the SS Administration, the INS, and other Federal fun. Â The gov't is made of millions of people, most of whom do not care if you live or die. Â They just want you out of their face. Â Speaking of automotons, that's what the gov't is mostly made of. Â I just don't want those people in charge of my money, and I don't want them to hold positions of power over me, which they do when you need something from them. BTW, I voted for Clinton in 1992. Â I was idealistic and full of hope. Â Then I entered the workforce and saw what his lovely tax increase did for me. Â That made up my mind. =) I don't necessarily blame GWBush for the direction everything is going. Rather I blame the terrorists that sparked everything with 9-11. It's not that they haven't been killing Americans for years, it's just not on such a spectacular level. GWB responded in a manner I agree with. I don't think AlGore would have done the same.

Here's a source for Sweden, maybe I misread? The link: http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www...._id=147 About education: Link: http://www.mkeever.com/sweden.html It was written by a native Swede, BTW. Yes, since we don't have the choice of keeping what is sent to SS, it is theoretical in some fashion, especially since SS is a pay-as-you-go system. With the baby-boomer population fast approaching retirement, the younger generation will either need to be taxed to the extreme, or the payments will need to be cut, or the system will simply not work. That's why I think we should cut our losses now and move on to something better. The problem is, most people are afraid to take responsibility of their own lives. They *want* gov't to provide all. I have a hope that perhaps GWB will eventually enact the SS reforms he proposed. SS is always a hot-button topic, of course, but I'd like the choice of determining where my future savings will be saved, rather than having a huge chunk pulled out by the gov't each month. This extra chunk of money could be saved and would have little effect on my spending money, so the reference to the Japanese economic issues doen't quite compute with that. I'm not sure I understand...isn't debate about discussing what one perceives to be the faults of the other? If I were saying, "so-and-so is a moron and he is wrong" without stating anything else, then that is not debate. I believe I've brought plenty of facts to the table here. Don't let your own beliefs cloud your role as moderator by blaming someone with a good argument for sinking to a level which they have not.

LOL. Heaven forbid we make society better for all! I think you forget Ronald Reagan's massive arms expenditures that sent the deficeit sky-rocketing. Urgh, told myself not to respond, but I just can't let this go. I specifically mentioned that both Reagan and the Dem's got to spend their money. The combination of Reagan's military spending plus the Dem's social spending is what increased the deficit. I clearly stated it and yet you act as though I didn't? It wasn't one side or the other acting alone. It was both sides in collusion, each spending money on what they wanted. Vitriolic accusations aside, that is what happened. The recession was a combination of many things, but to be simple-minded about it and blame the president while absolving the congress is ludicrous. Also, to automatically assume that increased government social spending = better society is not sound thinking. Remember that the government is made up of millions of people, most of whom don't care a whit about you. Their job security does not rely upon your satisfaction, rather it relies upon a union that doesn't care about job performance, but only about the number of members it has. These are the people who are in control of your benefits. If I could have the money that is removed from my paycheck for SS and put it into a very secure CD and earn 6.5% interest across the rest of my working years, I would have far more for retirement than the measley amount SS pays out. I'm also not sure why you refer to facts as "Republican propoganda". If that were true then I'd be stating that everything the Rep's did was pure gold. I am not. I am simply stating the factual history and also pointing out that the economy is massive and to assume that the president can make or break the economy without the help of the congress shows a weak grasp on reality. I can tell you simply skimmed over the post without fully seeing what was there. I guess it's to be expected, however. You have the "Answer" already. All you need is enough bits and pieces of facts to string together to reach this "Answer". @Walker - To think that congressional decisions over the past 4 years will have no bearing on the election is...well, let's just say it reveals a fundamental lack of political understanding. Denoir: Sweden is a fascinating case study in capitalism mixed with socialism, because each is at an odd extreme. Sweden has very little agriculture, but large ore interests and of course Ericsson, Abb, Ikea, and Tetra-Pak, Volvo, Saab, Electrolux (my mom had one of those years ago), although many of these companies have relocated a lot of their interests to other countries due to tax purposes. Citizens pay the vast majority of taxes, while corporations pay less, while the opposite is true here in the US. The auto industry is very important to Sweden, but isn't it true that Ford owns a large stake in Volvo and General Motors owns a large stake in Saab? The IT industry is emerging as a very important part of the economy as well. Some things which help Sweden are the smallish population of 9 million, and the fact that benefits are reserved for citizens. I find it interesting to note that Sweden turned down very recently using the Euro as their currency and are staying with the Krona. The debt hovers around 52% of GDP, which is quite high, and while there has been a national surplus, about 1.5% last year, local municipalities are in deficit due to large amounts of social spending. I have also seen reports that unemployment is 14%, but much of this is hidden by making the unemployed go to school for skills training, thus classifying them as students and making the unemployment look more like 5%. Also, cronyism is extremely high there, and immigrants often have to change their last names in order to even get interviews. Anyway, Sweden is a bit OT, but I just wanted to point out that it's not really a valid comparison to the US economy, but rather is more equivalent to California, in size, at least.

If a "liberalized" i.e. Socialist economy is the future, where anyone can choose to work or live off welfare, then it will be a sad future indeed unless someone can come up with energy-matter converters to make all of our food and also come up with a cheap, clean limitless source of energy. It will kill innovation, and we'll see a major decline in new inventions because then there'll be no more rewards for coming up with new things. My wife is Russian and she grew up in Communist Russia. Â She loves the U.S. economy. Â Does it have its downsides? Â Of course, anything man-made will. Â If our future is to reside in that sort of socialist, "government provides all" economy, then we're headed for catastrophe, as we witnessed. Â Massive government breeds a lack of respect for individuals, and soon we all become sheep, any of which can simply be discarded for the "good of the whole". Humans are highly social animals, and while there is a group tendency to be found, we are also highly individualistic. Â This is being bred from many who have grown up in economies where the gov't is the hand that provides. Â I can understand why some have the view that this is right way, but it's not sustainable, and it's evenutally self-destructive. As I said, it will lead to a lack of innovation, and stagnation in the populace will occur. Â The automation of manufacturing and such doesn't come from socialism, but rather from people innovating and finding better ways of doing things. Â Why? Â For some, it's money. Â For others it's the challenge. Â Yet for others it's wanting to make things better for others. Â Each has their reasons, but if you take away the reason or the challenge, then what's left? RE the economy - Iwon't continuosly debate the merits of whether it's Rep's or Dem's in the white house. Â All I can say is that the proof is in the pudding. Â Up until the Rep's took over congress in 1994, there was massive deficit spending by Democrats on their pet social projects. Â The Dem's had a radically different spending idea from Reagan, but he was too popular to completely defy. Â Therefore an agreement was reached and Reagan got his spending priorities, the military spending he needed to make the Soviets bankrupt themselves, and the Dem's got their social bankroll to enlarge and swell welfare and other black-hole programs. Then, of course, as it happens about once a decade, a recession hit after the momentous boom years of Reagan. Â G.H. Bush inherited the deficit spending from both sides, the balloon of the stock market imploded, and the President, as is so often the case, got the blame. He increased taxes (massively) to no avail. Â Clinton came in, increased taxes again but didn't decrease spending. Â The Dem's, arrogant at having had power for so long fought amongst themselves for larger portions of the Federal Bankroll. Â Spending increased, more deficits. Â Then the Dem's were knocked out of power by the "Republican Revolution". Â Spending was cut, deficits came down, and responsible spending was popular in Washington. Â Welfare was reformed as were other major wasteful social spending projects. Then, the best thing happened in Washington that can happen there. Â The gov't deadlocked. Â Neither side would budge and thus and we had status quo for a while. Â This let the economy loose and it soared. Â As is the case in such times, people spent like crazy and corporations invested in tons of capital expenditures, especially internet infrastructure, thus setting up the next recession. It's not so cut and dried as having one party in power and making the economy perfect. Â I am inferring from your previous posts that you are a party-loyal Dem who cannot be swayed by facts. Â I'll accept this and not try to further argue my point since it's obviously wasted here. Â I am not wholly satisfied with Bush's decisions with social spending. Â He is obviously trying to pander to wider audience. All the more reason why I rarely venture into the Off-Topic area. Â While I find most of the arguments interesting, if not one-sided, it's a waste of electrons, which thankfully, are in plentiful supply here. I just hope (and it's far-fetched) that we can soon move out and find other inhabitable worlds, and recapture the human spirit of individualism and entrepreneurialism which is slowly being dampened here by ever expanding and suffocating government interference. Wwerd.

You are aware that the Democrats controlled the US economy for 40 years through the legislature, correct? During that time the budget was never in balance regardless of whether the President was a Dem or Republican. What I do know is that they added tons of wasteful social programs. When you say Republicans Tax and Spend, do you mean they cut taxes and deficit spend? If so, then yes I've seen that occur. John F. Kennedy himself, however promoted the same sort of spending. Remember, the president doesn't control the budget or make legislation. The Congress does that, and it has been in the red under both Dems and Rep's. Remember the economy being in the black? The Republicans controlled the Congress. It only came into balance after the Republicans took over congress. Before then it was in deficit.

I don't misunderstand. I consider police, military, roads, etc. to be infrastructure. As I said in my earlier post, I'm willing to pay my FAIR share for infrastructure. I am for a much more limited government, not the abolishment of it. This is a common liberal mistake, to think that just because I don't wish to pay taxes that subsidize corporations, welfare, medicaid and social security means that I don't believe in social order through laws and enforcement of those laws. I believe the economy needs some "conscience" i.e. not complete Laissez Faire Economics. As I also said, freedom doesn't mean you're free to do everything you wish. With freedom comes the responsibility to respect other individuals' rights. Human nature dictates that there will be those who respect your right to freedom, and others who wish to deny that freedom for either their own personal gain, or simply to snuff out your freedom through murder. Government is therefore a necessary evil. Unfortunately, government sometimes becomes more of a menace than other individuals who cause harm. I agree Bush has overspent. I don't disagree with his military spending for the most part, but I do disagree with the extra social spending he has piled on, i.e. the prescription drug benefit being the largest. I think, however, that a liberal would increase social spending, which I am against. I would say I'm more of a Libertarian than I am a conservative on many issues, although some do intermingle. I think that most liberal ideology, while it sounds greatand compassionate on the surface, is often unworkable and actually restricts freedom while spending money in a wasteful way. Not only that, but lack of burden of responsibility for your future will dampen the human spirit and cause a severe lack of innovation.

I am sorry, but I am not a borg, or an ant, I am an individual, free to do as I choose within certain bounds. Government is of the people and it is merely an institution bound to uphold a code by which free people live by in order to respect each other's right to freedom. If one person decides to drop out of school and work at McDonald's for the rest of their life, while the next works hard and earns millions, then the person who earns millions should not be forced to pay for the other guy's meal ticket. Using the police power of government to take away money and using it to buy votes through "populist" policies is immoral. Both sides are guilty of it, but that doesn't make it right. Obviously if you're in a system that relies upon the government for everything then you'll have a much different view. Extremely socialized economies will have people who tend to think of gov't as their nanny, i.e. the one who'll take care of them no matter what. I think this mentality is dangerous in large doses and will eventually produce a population that only does what it can to get by, rather than actually innovate and create wealth. As Thomas Payne wrote in Common Sense

Who are we to determine who doesn't "need" the money they earn? If you earn the money then you should be able to keep it. I would warrant that most people who earn $200k + a year work their asses off for that. Granted, you'll always have those who inherit money, but most of the time they squander it and end up in the poor-house. Jealousy of high wage earners is a common tactic of the left, used to wage class war and I think it's rather worn out. The best thing to do is get rid of the Social security system and allow people to save their money elsewhere. Hell, you can earn more money in a long-term very secure CD than you can with Soc Sec. Plus you can leave it all in your will. It's the social services the gov't provides that create such huge deficits, and they came about because the gov't piles more and more taxes upon everyone. IHMO the Social Security Administration is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated on us. I say cut our losses now, and run up some deficits paying off everyone who payed into it, since all of the money in it has been spent on everything but SS. I could go on, but here's the point, the economy might be sagging, and the gov't might be in deficit, but the gov't is in deficit because of all of the social services that it wastes trillions on, not because of tax cuts. I earn the money, I should be able to keep it after paying a FAIR share toward infrastructure.

The main thing that gets overlooked in the discussion of the US economy's downturn is that while Clinton might get the credit for the good economy in the 90's, he got out of office just in time to escape the blame for the crash which occurred because too many companies bought into the internet economy hype too much and too soon, not to mention all of the crooked "cooking the books" that was going on while Clinton was in office. While I'm not blaming him for the illegal activities of corporate executives, I'm also not giving him props for the economy. His 'Deficit Reduction Package' aka BIG tax increase had little to do with the surplus. That would have come anyway with a little bit of fiscal responsibility due to the surge of the economy as everyone went bonkers, i.e. making fortunes just from being able to program in html. It was an economy built on a weak foundation and it crashed us back down a ways. I think Bush should have waited for 2004 to run, personally, because Gore would have gotten the blame for the economy. I don't care if people earning over $200k get more money back from the taxcut. It's simple math that as a % of your earnings, you'll pay more money if you earn more money. Here's the problem..people LOVE to blame other factors for their problems. In almost every case, people are where they are because of the sum of decisions that they've made in their life. If you're going to rely on a government or someone else to keep you afloat, then you're entering into a losing proposition. Politics is all about blaming someone else for problems. BTW, maybe this GDP discussion should be held in another thread? If I wanted to learn how to decipher all of that, then I'd dig up my macroeconomics book. The economy is like the weather. You might be able to have some miniscule effect upon it, i.e. seeding it, but for the most part it's so massive that it has a life of its own.

I'm loving the campaign so far. I just completed the steal the tanks mission where you have to actually steal a fuel truck to fuel up the tanks. So far the campaign has been an excellent mix of covert ops and frontal assaults. Plus I LOVE ambushing convoys, although I wish I'd had more of a free hand in ambushing the one on the river. In the rescue the civilians mission, I set up my satchels and took out 4 BMP's in one shot! Then I got killed by the PT76's that came after them. The cut-scenes are first rate. I can't imagine the number of hours that was put into voice acting and scripting to make them work so well. I mean it's really a professional job on that. This could almost be sold as an expansion pack! The addons also are textured and modeled extremely well. There are many small details, like mud on the sides of the vehicles, etc. that really make them stand out. My only gripe might be that some of the gun sounds don't really sound real. I am by no means an expert, I have never heard a BMP fire in real life, but do their machine guns really sound like that? Also the small arms that the resistance have sound strange too. I can't explain the sound, but it's almost like they have silencers on them and are muffled. The explosions and other effects are top-notch. The first time I set off a satchel and blew up some BMP's, I noticed that little ring of dust/smoke that comes out from the shockwave. I thought that was really cool. Anyway, I'm looking forward to playing the rest of the campaign now.

The webpage is dead. It was killed when I released 1.40 and had so much bandwidth being sucked from the ISP that it bogged down their critical systems so they killed it. OFP.info will be hosting my new webpage, however. I just need to re-do it since my old host deleted everything once they figured out what had been draining a steady 4mbps off of them for 3 days straight.

I have released RTS3 1.41. This fixes several bugs, including the respawn bug, and the AI squad commanders not capturing territory. More info in the first post of this thread. Cannonfodder - the a does not mean alpha. Beta 4a and Beta4b are just like version numbers, i.e. 1.40, 1.41. Zig made some changes to it. BTW, make sure you get the latest version of his RTS3Res Addons. They are on OFP watch for my server.

All of my soldiers from the previous mission except for the Black Ops were killed. That was the convoy mission. At the beginning of the Protect Convoy mission, two soldiers look like they are dead, but they are not. I can have them report status, and they say they are ok, but I look at them and they look like corpses on the ground. I can shoot them or blow them up, and then when I ask them to report status, they are still alive. It is very strange. That may not be why the mission crashes though.

I've been having a problem with CSLA that became noticeable on the Capture the sub expert mission, and might be crashing me in the protect convoy mission (right after the ambush the soviet convoy with spare parts mission). Whenever I start a mission, I get a "No Entry Config.bin" error message and units 4 and 6 in my group show as corpses on the ground. However, they are alive and respond when I ask them to report in. I can shoot their bodies and it doesn't kill them. In the capture the sub expert mission, the first few times I played it, the sniper in my group #2 showed as a healthy corpse on the ground. I had the same issues, but after restarting it a couple of times, he was alive and well. Anyway, when the convoy starts to go up the hill in the town, they get shot at, and if the truck with infantry in it gets hit, my game crashes. Also #4 and #6 in my group are in that corpselike state. I have been using CSLA 2.01 update, so I did a fresh install of the regular CSLA, but got the same No entry config.bin errors. I am only running the CSLA addons, and my Res\addons and OFP\addons folders are clean with only original addons. Only 1 time did I get to the point where the BMP's came, but they seemed to materialize near the town, and my satchels were down the road a ways. I can't complete this mission with the crashing. Any ideas? Thanks!

Anyone with basic knowledge of mission editing can de-pbo the mission and simply re-arrange the territory markers. Then all you have to do is separate the random location markers and build locations. I.e. marker 1a would be on one island and 1b on the other.

Do you have your mod folders loading up properly? Also, you should be able play the Nogova version without the @ symbol in it with only RTS3Core addons loaded. You do not need to be logged into my server or anything to play with the addons. That is independent. Look here for more information on mod folders: http://www.theavonlady.org/theofpf....ers.htm @Medicus - RTS3 Sarugao used to use both islands, but I wanted to make a compact version since we hardly ever played the Sarugao across two islands.

FYI, I have new hosting, but not a website yet. See information about getting the missions and addons in the first post of this thread, as I've updated it. Thanks a ton to Cervo and the guys at http://ofp.gamezone.cz/ for the hosting.

None of the current RTS-3 1.4 versions are 3-way. This is a side project that players on my server have been wanting for a while - the ability to play as Resistance. MrZig took it upon himself to make this happen since I've been to busy doing bug fixes and optimizations on the current versions of RTS. I was somewhat skeptical of his ability to do it, I must admit, but once he finally got it working I was impressed. He had to edit a LOT of scripts and dialogs to make this work. I plan on doing a revamp of RTS so that a mapmaker can easily make the mission 3-way, or make it Res vs. Sov's/Res Vs West, for example all by simply adding Resistance units to the map and/or removing other team's units from the map, and I'll probably use many of MrZig's ideas. Until then, MrZig's 3-way is the only 3-way RTS. He's working on a couple of bugs, i.e. earning money and a couple of other minor things that need addressing. Once those are fixed, we'll probably release it in beta format. It requires 3 very small addons totalling about 120KB.

D'OH. I tried climbing the ladder on it, but got no option to "climb ladder up". Maybe when I blew up those satchels on the ground it damaged it. I will try again tonight. Great campaign so far!

In the mission "Priority Monitoring" where you have to steal a soviet radio and blow up the radio mast, how do you destroy that radio mast? I've placed all six satchels on it (mine and the soldier's in my squad) and that doesn't destroy it. I've destroyed the ammo crates and the tents too, but I don't get an objective complete on that. Am I missing some good ammo somwhere in that camp?