magekillr

I don't know how you couldn't see the message...or themes. Come to think of it, that was my favorite aspect. There's always themes in a story...

False: Joe Biden would, and will destroy him. I'm pretty certain those will be the two VPs; Biden and Romney. God Bless Dennis Kucinich...I freaking love him.

Kill Bill WAS one movie, but Tarantino split it into two parts because no one would want to sit through a 4 hour movie in a theater...I say that counts. The original was one movie, it was released in two pieces...I mean, it's not like it's the Matrix.

Kill Bill is technically one movie, just split into two parts for theatrical purposes (and of course, you make more money haha). Not the longest, but it's really long. What is it? Like 250 minutes or summit? Edit: Just looked on Wikipedia, and it's 247 minutes.

If he picks Romney, Obama's VP damn well better be Joe Biden. I would love to see me some Romney get his [wagon] roasted by Joe in a debate. If it's someone like Huckabee or Jindal, I can settle for Richardson, where debating skills and exposing [cabbage] won't be as imminent.

Even tasers are being abused by those in power Ginger: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/22/tas ... nnSTCVideo However, I'd much rather people own those than guns.

Yeah, I found that video on digg. And? I don't watch Olbermann. I think he's a self-righteous blow-hard leftist version of O'Reilly, albeit an intelligent one. Well, as far as I'm concerned, voting against Webb's GI bill is pissing on Veterans. He further pissed on them by trying to take the credit for the bill, despite his fierce opposition (which, was very small among both Republicans and Democrats). Off-shore drilling is bad, more drilling on-shore is bad, more drilling period is bad. People still don't realize the problem is the drilling itself that is the problem...and until that happens, I hope gas continues to rise. Trickle down economics are good for economic growth, but none of that growth is seen by the 90-95% of people who live here. Salaries haven't increased since Bush has been in office. It's even worse for the economic disparity gap.

He has a D+ rating for veterans benefits, he cares not for his fellow veterans because he thinks we're being too generous. I suppose I should listen to Sean Hannity or Dennis Prager? I don't watch Olbermann, as a matter of fact I don't watch tv at all. Any shows I like I watch online. News? I go to BBC or the Guardian. I'm not discussing those issues with you because there's no point, no conservative will agree with why vouchers are bad, why off-shore drilling is bad, or why the those tax cuts are bad.

Have you heard of the McCain detainee act? Where do you get your facts? The daily kos or moveon.org? Cool, a bill in 2005. It's 2008, and he voted against the waterboarding ban, and Bush vetoed the bill. The McCain Detainee Act also took a heavy brunt from the Supreme Court when they gave Habeas Corpus back to the prisoners. You can find these facts on any news site, or even http://www.loc.gov/index.html

He voted against the bill that would ban the United States from using it as an interrogation method. He was against torture, including waterboarding, in the debates, but he failed to show up when it came time to vote. The "maverick" voted right alongside Bush's thoughts on the issue.

Iraq, McCain supported Bush's efforts to privatise Social Security, flip-flopped to align himself with the Bush tax cuts, supported No Child Left Behind, his health care plan is the same as Bush's and his voting record in 2008 was "100% with Bush" Waterboarding (torture), Veterans benefits, vouchers, off-shore drilling.

Believe me, i'd love to be able to see the troops come home more then anyone. Its just not that simple. People don't understand that. Thats why you never heard politicians promising to withdrawl everyone at once. You just can't do it. Its a slow process. We are there right now because we have a civil duty to the citizens of the nation or Iraq. We can't come home until we further this. Make sure they are stable. So why aren't we withdrawing them "slowly" then? They want us out, they want a timetable, what is so hard to understand about that? It doesn't make any sense that we are still there, we have NO RIGHT to be there...

The second amendment has been violated in this country-not from gun bans, but from people abusing their "god given right" to own a gun. John Paul Stevens and I would agree that the second Amendment was put in place not to own guns the way we think of today, but for a standing militia in a grave time of war against Indians, the possibility of the British coming back again (and they did in 1812), and the fact that you hunted for your food. I personally cannot wait for the day it's repealed so there's no longer a debate about "What the Founders meant"... I'm so throwing a party when that day comes :thumbsup: \

Even worse. Ivy League private colleges are known to have their grades inflated. They have a safe spot in Pakistan and Afghanistan right now.

That's fantastic Krieg, so why are we there? 15/18 benchmarks completed right? That's like a B average. Bush was a C student, he should be happy. Can our men and women come home now?

Hmm...wasn't the mission to find WMD? No? What was it then? Oh, right, to take Saddam out of power. What? That wasn't the mission either? Was it to establish a government that can operate on its own and when they tell us to leave we will? Oh. No? Still not right? Damn, here I was thinking those were our missions that have changed once each one has been completed...now I know our mission was to reduce violence in the Middle East, and not give a [bleep] about Zimbabwe or Darfur. Thanks. edit: ... the surge was a six month plan that took 18 months, and we still haven't seen the political reconciliation that was promised as part of it. Sure, violence is down appreciably, but even Maliki says that is more of a result of other factors, not our troop surge.

What the hell does "work" even mean? Reduce violence? Yes. Get us closer to withdrawing? No.

I hate it when the opposition autonomically cites the fact that the surge has "worked". The surge has reduced violence since it has been implemented, but this is not synonymous with the idea that the surge has "worked". Remember what we had to do in order to effectively reduce violence: we had to bribe Sunni leaders and their constituencies to fight with us. Sure, they approached us because they were no longer able to tolerate an alliance with Al-Qaeda in Iraq, but we are still bribing them to fight with us against them. That's the reason for our success. And furthermore, what it has done is disperse our enemies much more so than it has destroyed them, and that's why we're seeing a weakness in Al-Qaeda's fighting abilities as of late. Then you've got the Shia militias who wield enormous political power and serve as a conduit for Iranian influence in the country. The Iraqi troops encountered them in the south near Basra, and Al-Maliki came down himself to oversee it, but the Iraqi military was a disorganized fighting group by comparison. One of the biggest problems in Iraq that is fostering an insurgency is the economy; if you can't obtain or maintain a job, killing Americans earns you money. We used Iraq's own problem to our advantage when we bribed the Sunni fighters to fight with us, because there's an economic void that has yet to be filled, and it's fostering violence. And when Al-Qaeda no longer becomes a significant power, and we have no need to contract the Sunni tribes to fight with us anymore... then what? The surge has reduced violence, but this is not synonymous with working. You might as well say that a cough suppressant can cure the flu.

Even then, having a gun is useless. Why not just have something like a bat or some other melee weapon to use? None lethal, and you can still protect yourself, while having protection if you get close. In most cases you can escape with your life by simply giving a robber what they want. And why wouldn't you? What kind of person would value their possessions so much that they rather attempt to stop the robber and loose their own life rather then living another day and maybe loosing out on some money? People who allow their possessions to take hold of them. The possession possess them, as it were, rather than the other way around. There are also ways of being robbed in which you can still feel compassion for your perpetrator, and no one needs to be hurt. I have been robbed at gun point, both in my house, and in Richmond, Virginia. Maybe I was lucky, but having a gun in either situation would not have helped me. It's not like I could have used the gun even if I owned one, I do not possess the "guts" to shoot another human or take their life. Even if I did, the gun would still have been no use, even if it was on me.

Why did blacks need to have their Civil Rights protests? Was that "shoving it down your throat" too? I mean, I feel like you would have been one of those people like, "Look, Lincoln freed you already, will you just stfu about this already? You're free, now leave us alone!" Careful, your homophobia is showing.

You're right, it is different, and what they're promoting (partially through my example, among other things) is fascism. Double you tee eff? And thanks for the explanation Ginger.

*sigh* The way they are promoting the particular race is fascism, not racism.

What exactly is "fascist" about the BNP? Don't take this as me defending them in any way. The reason the BNP is growing is mostly not because of actual support, but because of people protesting against the LibLabCon. Read their racial policies man... To even be a member, you have to be "Indigenous Caucasian".

I would agree with Ginger, the BNP is fascist. Ginger, I do have a question though. There's evidence that the party is growing, albeit it's still very small. What do you make of this, and why do you think this is?

So Jack: What is "winning in Iraq"? I mean, they have a government, their government wants us out, their people want us out, 68% of Americans want us out...when do you swap from "winning" to "won"? Or are you just gonna believe more [cabbage] benchmarks that have "been met" until the end of time? I don't understand what "winning" is when it comes to this situation. If there's a hockey game on, there's 3 periods, and whoever has the most points at the end of those 3 periods is the winner. So, what is winning? It's never going to be perfect, ever, no country is, especially in that region. You don't find this ironic...at all?: