1_man_army

Give it a rest. We all get it, you don't like Muslims, you've made it abundantly clear for the 5th or 6th time now you don't need to keep ramming it down our throats. As Kranked said, this topic is about freedom of speech, the Wilders point was just an example to make a point. I'm sure if somebody posted as many posts bashing your beliefs you'd be up in arms and moaning about it.

These things go in cycles, the random news article trend will wear off after a while. A consolidated news thread isn't really workable though - there would be so many random articles posted with replies to them scattered over pages and broken up by replies to other news items - it wouldn't be particularly conducive in making any sort of decent discussion. I personally don't mind the odd news thread when something big happens, it gives room for a debate but it does annoy me when copy pasta is used just for the sake of it. If there is no room for discussion then there is no point in posting even if the article is about somebody committing some sort of terrible crime - that only leaves us all the opportunity to condemn them without room for any discussion - while it's slighty harsh to say, those types are just boring.

That sort of thing unfortunately happens in every high profile conflict. In fact there was a lot of anti-Chinese feeling during the Tibet conflict. It's unfortunate that people feel the need to kick out at the entire group that they perceive to be in the wrong, it's too easy to point the finger at entire groups of people because of the actions of a few (the few in this case being the Israeli government).

I'm not too interested in seeing Watchmen (it just seems like a bit naff to me) but I find this whole situation fascinating. How could any company put $120 million into financing a film (which will rise with advertising before the release) and not have the rights completely sown up? You would think that Warner Bros. would have went through all the rights issues with a fine tooth comb before making such an investment.

The nomination of Palin has to be one of the biggest mistakes in election history. She clearly lacked the knowledge to fulfil the role of VP; before being put on the ticket she didn't know what a VP did day to day, she couldn't explain what the Bush doctrine was - the defining ideology of the last 8 years, her foreign policy credentials were that she "could see" Russia from her home state, she claimed that war with Russia was an option, she couldn't even tell Katie Couric what papers she read. That isn't the media being out to get her - that is an unqualified candidate, especially in these times. It has nothing to do with her looks or that she is a female, she just wasn't good enough and the thought of her being one heartbeat away from the Presidency (excuse the cliché) is petrifying. Don't think that my criticism of Palin is just based on her being a Republican either, I kind of liked the McCain of 2001 when he ran against Bush, but Palin was a terrible candidate regardless of her beliefs (which are equally scary to me) - she lacked any understanding of the issues. This wasn't an election where the party who could rally their base (which Palin's appointment was designed to do) this was the election of getting in new and undecided voters. I feel Palin was one of the big things that prevented the Republicans doing that. Her appointment was an attempt to get a politician that people could relate to as "one of us" which could help portray Obama as "other" or "not one of us" and it backfired. To choose her based on her 'folksyness' was a completely anti-intellectual decision, for too long the Republicans produced candidates based on who people can relate to rather than their ability (Bush and Palin being the prime examples). Continually, they attack Democrat candidates for being elitist and somewhat aloof and I think they fear that could happen to them if they don't produce 'one of the folks'. There are a lot of Republicans who I'm sure haven't been given the chance to run because of this. Personally, I don't mind voting for somebody who's story I can't relate to, who isn't a man of the people candidate with the common touch. I'd much rather be lead by a clever elitist who's policies I agree with and who I feel is smart enough to lead rather than somebody I like as a personality. I know I went off from my first point a bit there but the Republicans really need to change who they pick and why the pick them.

Excatly, there are a lot more females in USA than black people so by that theory, the republicans would have won by a landslide. The theory that black people voted for him just for being black ignores that black people tend to vote democrat anyway. As many people voting for him just in order to elect a black man are equalled by the people who won't vote for him because he is black and because of the republican attempts to suggest he was somehow unamerican (which plays on people prejudices, thankfully McCain himself didn't do this but others did).

As I have mentioned, that is just wrong. How did Obama play the race card? I remember one speech that focussed on race (after the Reverend Wright controversy) one out of literally hundreds during the campaign. If he had played the race card it would have destroyed his support among the white majority who got him elected. As I've said, whether you like him or not he campaigned on the spirit of hope and on the issues to say anything else is ridiculous. I mean what do you expect him to do - come out and say that he hates black people and paint himself white so he can avoid 'playing the race card'? Also, you say he is only half-african american, so what? In years gone by, even being mixed race was enough to diminish your civil rights. Mixed race people tend to identify themselves more as black, it isn't an uncommon occurrence. I've already rebuked the 'media won it for him' rubbish, just read my earlier. As I've said before, the media did not win him this election and race definately didn't. If anything, he won the election in spite of his race. He won because he is able to inspire people and because he was seen to be better equipped to deal with the economy than McCain. These conspiracy theories are sour grapes, fair enough disagree with his ideals and policies but this is all just in poor taste.

How is it racist that one president gets more attention than another? A ridiculous statement. Because he's black? If Obama was white he wouldn't get anywhere ner the hype he has now. There is a bit of a historical twist because he is the first black president but his appeal is his ability to inspire people much in the same way JFK did. JFK got a lot of attention...don't tell me, that was because he was the first Catholic to become President :roll: . Some Presidents get more attention than others, nothing to do with racism, just politics.

How is it racist that one president gets more attention than another? A ridiculous statement.

Do you know how stupid those two sentences are? Black people overwhelmingly vote democrat - it has been that way ever since Kennedy's support for equality legislation in 1960 and JBJ's signing of the Civil Right act so to say black people voted for him because he was black is silly, they voted for him because he is a democrat. If you use that sort of logic, wouldn't more women have voted Republican because of Sarah Palin - no because it's ridiculous reasoning. As for the media winning the election for him with their 'support' - there was a lot of scrutiny over various aspects of his candidacy. The Reverend Wright scandal was overblown for a long time, the inexperience factor was mentioned continually and he was portrayed as an elitist. So I wouldn't exactly say they went easy on him at all. In fact, if the media won the election because they're liberal then why have there been so many Republican presidents? People can just about make a judgement on their own. As for the other voters being [developmentally delayed]ed, well it's clear you're just suffering from sour grapes and acting like a child because your candidate didn't win. Pathetic.

An astute observation? There is nothing astute about your 2 posts in this topic, you have went and stereotyped every Muslim on Earth and branded them all terrorists. You are a bigot whether you accept the label or not, it is clear from your posts. Calling people animals because they are protesting against Israel's actions is another example of your blatant stereotyping and using the banners of an extreme minority (I witnessed the Edinburgh protest) to push your bigotry just disgusts me. To justify the killing of children of any background is barbaric and that is what you are suggesting - a pre-emptive killing of Gazan children to stop them joining Hamas. I don't mind having a different opinion to people here, it happens often enough and I'll argue points with people who have an opposing position to mine without animosity. However, you're really being quite offensive and plainly ignorant - it baffles me that tip.it doesn't take more decisive action when it comes to statements like yours as they're plainly bigoted. And before you begin with the inevitable, "the Hamas charter says this..." rubbish, I don't support Hamas or agree with their rocket campaign but to stereotype all Gazans and all Muslims because of this is pathetic.

I read the Merchant of Venice when I was in high school and quite enjoyed it. I don't understand much of the old fashioned language, if it wasn't for that I'd read more. It's interesting that people say the plays are boring when in fact, many of the play's plots are quite extreme and exciting. A lot of my knowledge of Shakespeare comes from the various film adaptations of his work as they tend to reduce some of the old fashioned language which makes them a bit more accessible for me. I like Akira Kurosawa's films and some of them are basically retellings of Sharespeare's plays but set in Japan (Throne of Blood is like MacBeth & Ran is a bit like King Lear for example).

Which Microsoft is fixing for free. My 360 has never over heated once and is played for hours at a time time. Sure, fixing a problem for free is good but it would be better if hey had prevented the problem happening in the first place. when you spend a significant amount of money on anything, it's not much to ask that it has been tested and built to prevent problems. Plus, having to send Microsoft your console (or have them pick it up...I don' know the procedure for this) and then have to wait while they fix it is just irritating. That being said, as a PS3 user I do concede that the Xbox is a pretty good console - I personally dislike the pads which is why I wouldn't get one but aside from that and the ring of death, I quite like the Xbox.

[/hide] http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/ ... index.html It looks like Israel is putting across a ceasefire that they know Hamas will never agree to, it is another PR exercise. A unilateral ceasefire with unagreeable terms that will just provoke Hamas more and allow Israel to react again when it suits them. It is a waste of time, they need to get a multilateral agreed ceasefire in place for this to have any effect, a Hamas spokesman has already declared that there is no way they will agree to the terms.

Yes, everyone not on the right wing is a weak, wishy washy, unpatriotic, communist, terrorist sympathising liberal scumbag :roll: .

I love movies; short ones, long ones, big expensive ones, little independents and of any genre. I like to see films that try to aspire to something either by entertaining me, involving me emotionally or by just telling me a great story. I dislike films which I feel are untruthful or lack ambition. It happens alot more often with blockbuster type films for me as many of them seem to be made by committee to attract as wide an audience as possible. I don't mind which emotion a film makes me feel, it's okay to not go out of a film on a high note and feel happy when it's over. In fact, I've found that some of my favourite films haven't left me on a high after seeing them for the first time that variety is good though. I think it was David Fincher who said recently (I'm paraphrasing) "A big superhero, action sort of film is great for a friday night but not every night is a friday night".

According to the articles I read this morning, he was just arrested today.

Yeah, I'd seen it a few years back on tv and liked it but it's one of those films that gets better when you have more to bring to it. The ending is one of those brilliant twists that brings the whole film to a full circle. edit - Those Cassavetes films are pretty awesome as well, I got them in another boxset that had the 2 seperate cuts of Killing of a Chinese Bookie in it instead of the documentary.

Yeah there is certainly some common ground between Al Qaeda and the Saudi's but their conflict is too great to get over. I couldn't find a link to back directly but both of these skirt around the issue enough to make my point. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 984547.stm http://www.elkhabar.com/quotidienFrEn/l ... ida=139172 edit - Here is another link which is supposedly an interview with Bin Laden where he explains his dispute with the Saudi royals. I can't guarantee its authenticity as it isn't from a source I've used before. Even if it is a fake it does detail the points well. http://www.justresponse.net/Bin_Laden4.html Since you're referring to Likud, it's interesting to note that Bejamin Netanyahu (Likud's leader) was part of a grour who celebrated the 60th anniversary of The King David Hotel Bombing which killed 91 people. That is a big part of why I dislike Netanyahu. I also distrust Livni as a politician. Yitzak Rabin is the only recent Israeli leader who I have respect for, at least he was pragmatic enough to sign the Oslo Accords and brave enough to put himself against public opinion by doing so.

Again,the blood thirsty israelis want to bomb the whole middle-east,thats what you were aiming at isn't it? No but it does support the notion that Kadima has been looking for a war in time for the election. I myself said that the Hamas was fool enough to play to Barak & Livni hands by starting this crisis, but claiming Israel leaders were just looking for a war,any war,i think its abit harsh. Harsh, but it isn't completely ridiculous considering how close the 2008 elections were. Plus Livni, as a female candidate, has to look tough towards Israel's enemies so she can try to mould herself into the sort of Golda Meir image the Israeli public. I didn't construct that sentence very well but you know what I mean.

Again,the blood thirsty israelis want to bomb the whole middle-east,thats what you were aiming at isn't it? No but it does support the notion that Kadima has been looking for a war in time for the election.

Really? We haven't had a declaration of war since 1941. While Afghanistan and Iraq were approved wars by Congress, they are not wars against nations. Not to mention, a coalition is fighting there. Just because there has been no declarations of war since 1941 doesn't mean that they don't count. If it looks like a war, it tends to be a war.

Aside from destroying America, one of Bin Laden's key aims is to overthrow the Saudi Royal family (he blames them for letting America into the Middle East in the first place). In fact, the Saudi Royal family revoked his citizenship as far as I remember. Don't get me wrong there might be sympathetic elements in Saudi Arabia who support him but I don't think it would go as far as the royal family to be honest.

I'm with Reb. :P That really cuts deep lol.