5/10/2006 11:33pm, #21Originally Posted by Kidspatula
I was referencing Karateka by Jordan Mechner. There were no midgets with boomerangs but instead an endless stream of gi wearing fighters. The packaging advertised "realistic karate action" and for the most part it's true. I mean, the game is overall a pretty realistic portrayal of point fighting. There's no blocking and it's all poke and retreat and kicks are generally more utilitarian than punches because of the reach issue. It actually looks something like point fighting IRL.
If you're curious enough I recommend downloading an apple II emulator and a Karateka ROM. I love that game still.
5/10/2006 11:35pm, #22
oh right, in kung fu you start off fighting streams of knife wielding arabs, not gi wearing fighters.Ranked #9 internationally at 118lbs by WIKBA http://www.womenkickboxing.com/wikba...rch%202009.htm
5/10/2006 11:41pm, #23Originally Posted by Don Gwinn
guns at all.
I just think that all you hand wringers are really over estimating the influence of these various international entities on the US.
As a UN symapthiser I should tell you that it's the other way around. The US dicks over NGOs all over the world because of influence and political power. Right now organizations that draw funding from USAid aren't allowed to talk about abortion or else they may lose funding. That's a clear cut example of US local politics messing up reproductive health services in the developing world.
So, basically, if you think the big bad UN is going to come and mess things up in the US I am mildly annoyed with you. Because *I'm* afraid of the big bad US messing with NGOs that I want to work for later. Nyah. :boxing:
5/12/2006 4:01pm, #24
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
This is what will happen:
i. The League Of Nations - err, I mean the UN - will pass a motion saying that guns are awful and icky, and only boys like them 'cos boys are immature, and they smell too, so there.
ii. All the countries with guns tell the UN to **** off.
iii. Life carries on as usual.
5/12/2006 7:16pm, #25Originally Posted by Wounded Ronin
And, if you run into the last room too quickly, JKDChick will kick you in the face."You know what I like about you, William? You like guns AND meditation."
5/12/2006 8:50pm, #26
It's not a comparison. You said the U.N. is not targeting American gun owners. In point of fact, they are. I merely laid out the facts which show this to be true. I can't help it if you find it annoying that I'm so often correct.
IANSA is a U.N.-run NGO. It is dedicated to eradicating private gun ownership. In the words of its head, Rebecca Peters, it believes that I and every other American shooter have to "Get a new hobby." Well, screw her. That's not up to her.
Brazil was supposed to be Peters' and IANSA's big victory; they were going for a domino theory in which they would knock over key nations into the gun-ban column and others which would otherwise have resisted would follow slavishly.
Didn't work. But that doesn't mean they don't have to take the blame for trying.
From where I sit, the U.N. is an expensive way to ensure that nothing gets done. Its "human rights" advocacy too often becomes anti-semitism or anti-Americanism. It's a little on the stupid side. It has often been said in America that we should demolish the U.N. building and put in two whorehouses and a 7-11, which would be far more useful.
5/12/2006 9:58pm, #27Originally Posted by Wounded Ronin
5/13/2006 4:45am, #28
Originally Posted by Wounded Ronin
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
Oz's gun laws are an Australian issue and America's shooters are the USA's business. It does no good for an international organisation to be seen to be interfering in a sovereign nation's affairs - it alienates public opinion, which is what keeps the UN going, along with self-serving Realpolitik.
The UN has lost its way since the Cold War and seems to be picking what it sees as the easier battles instead of real issues such as the abysmal state of human rights worldwide. Why waste your time in Burma when you can get really self-righteous with people in Nebraska who own a pistol or two?
Why, for example, is the UN not moving Heaven 'n Earth for Darfur? (No oil or arms contracts or strategic positions are at stake there, naturally, but you get the point.) Because it is distracted, compromised and sorely lacking in good leadership. Whether you're pro-gun or not, I think it's safe to agree that the UN really should focus on more pressing issues.
5/13/2006 6:12am, #29
In the end, the United Nations is weak, and ineffectual. Their mandates are, at best, suggestions that have little to no enforcability, relying on countries to play along or relying on the Big Bad USofA to force people to play ball. For example, read through the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and tell me how well it is being enforced across the world.
Any movement from the UN to disarm the world will end up being something of the following:
Dear United States,
Look, we don't like guns and we think you should get rid of them. You don't really have to if you don't want to, and you'll probably use this as an excuse to intervene in a third world country where you have interests and no motives as of yet, but we'd really like you to stop using guns.
PS. Can you supply most of the funding for our gun banishing program? We're a little strapped for cash right now.
5/13/2006 6:18am, #30Originally Posted by Phrost