DeathBug

[quote name='Lore][color=#6699cc]Interestingly enough, there's a psalm where David does just that. Lines like "may his children be fatherless," and stuff like that. [url=http://bible.cc/psalms/109-9.htm]Looked it up, it's Psalm 109[/url'].[/color][/quote] Do you know the context of that? Because David goes rogue towards the end of his life, if I recall correctly. And I'm afraid it will be a cold day in Hades before I stop badmouthing Castro, Ilium. But that's an entirely different subject.

[quote name='Lore][color=#6699cc']Imagine if he and Chavez were classmates! [/color][/quote] I smell a sit-com! Ahem. Clearly, from a Christian perspective, asking God to kill people is kind of a no-no. And while he may have the right to do so, I think it's fair to say that the people who follow religious leaders hold them to a higher standard tha that, with the exception of extremists. To my knowledge, Robertson's flock aren't a part of that classification. Granted, from a legal perspective, Robertson has the right to say what he will as a private citizen, but he also must accept the consequences and criticisms that come from his statements. Not that I'm a fan of Chavez ("Yes, Mr. Chvez, I'm sure Casto's a great guy once you get to know him"), but I'm not wishing death upon him...

[quote name='Siren']You?re breaking my heart. If you don't want negative feedback, don't say stupid ****, simple as that. "Again" is absolutely right, DB, because rarely have I seen you make any shred of sense. Remember the No Child Left Behind? Yeah, so do I.[/quote] No, actually, I don't remember much of NCLB, because that was at least a year ago; you're the one who keeps bringing it up, because you want to constantly bring up a time you were right and I was wrong. Grow up. [QUOTE]And what does this matter, DeathBug? Our military is comprised of good individuals. Okay. But that doesn't mean that those in the Armed forces for educational or economic reasons aren't there for educational or economic reasons. And again...remember that the "sense of duty" can still (and has) been spun into the "gung-ho" even by the dutiful themselves. I give props to our military, DB. I do. I respect them. But I'm not about to springboard off of that to vehemently criticize a woman whose political viewpoint I'm diametrically opposed to.[/QUOTE] I didn't actually use that to critisize Sheehan; I was responding to a point already brought up. [QUOTE]By the way, "they've already got the ability of character" is utterly trite and fairly naive. It more sounds like the recruitment commercials than any respectable view on things.[/QUOTE] I have an entire lifetime's worth of experience living on military bases and with members of the armed forces my assertion. It's truth in advertising. [QUOTE]Wasn?t it obvious? If she was right-wing, you wouldn?t have a problem with her at all.[/QUOTE] If she was right-wing, what would she be doing? [QUOTE] DeathBug, I doubt you weren?t attacking her when you basically implied (and just outright said above) she was a good-for-nothing political opportunist, exploiting her son?s death to further her own personal political agenda. I doubt you weren?t attacking her when you implied that she was a ?two-faced, manipulative, exploitive snake.? You?re not attacking her? Please. Dispense with the smokescreen, man.[/QUOTE] Who said two-faced? Part of my point was that she's saying exactly what she was always saying, only now she's using an elevated platform. She's an activist, same as she's always been, and my problems with her are the same as my problems with any misguided activist. [QUOTE]And do (did) you feel the same way about Terry Schiavo?s parents? After all, based on your evaluation criteria, they?re exploiting their daughter so they can further a political agenda. They used her death (for all intents and purposes, it was a death) to petition both Bushes. And yet, I can?t recall seeing anything from you that wasn?t critical of Michael Schiavo and remotely scathing directed towards Terry?s parents. Why is that? Why don?t you just admit what we all know here? The following screams what I?m getting at.[/QUOTE] Well, this is totally off-topic, but the Schiavo debacle made all involved look bad. Micheal Schiavo was persnally reprehensible for not letting her parents have the body for funeral purposes, the judge who decided she should be starved to death was a cretin, and all politicians involved in summoning an emergency session of Congress for a single private individual were grossly overstepping their bounds. Not that any of this matters at all to the Sheenhan debate, unless you're trying to make this a debate on my personal credibility. [QUOTE]And you don?t see why you?re taking issue with this woman? Her being an activist has nothing to do with it. Your entire argument is politically charged. You don?t dislike her for what she is. You dislike her for what she isn?t.[/QUOTE] I dislike her for what she's doing. And the argument is politically charged because it's a politically charged discussion. [QUOTE]Also, you?ve described her actions as callous, but you?ve just sat here and accused her of being a political shark, that she doesn?t really care about her son, only that she can use it to further a political agenda. And you say she?s callous? Grow a heart..[/QUOTE] [b]I never once said that she didn't care about her son.[/b] Of course she does; it's not a part of this discussion at all. And while we're at it, I never said I was sorry that she lost her son; I figured that would be a given. But since apparently I'm not assumed to have basic human feelings, I'll say it now: I'm sorry she lost her son. [QUOTE]And?if history will judge if she made any impact, why are you able to comment on anything?[/QUOTE] Because I'm discussing the appropriateness of her actions, not their impact. [QUOTE]And again, bringing up historical context, if you take issue with one act of political activism purely on the grounds that one is making connections and networking to help further one?s cause?you?d have to condemn history itself, because that?s what political activism involves: building a voice. You find it on the right and left, so why do we see you only criticizing it when the left does it?[/QUOTE] I'm critisizing the way she's presenting herself: as a non-activist. She's not sitting alone in Crawford holding a silent vigil; she's at the center of a political rally she's organizing. She doesn't want to call a spade a spade, because it won't arouse public sympathy the same way. [QUOTE] By the way, are you about to tell me that you would absolutely refuse to make connections, network, etc., if you were fighting for a particular political issue? Seems hypocritical to denounce what this mother is doing when it?s very likely (almost a guarantee I?d think) that you?d do the same things, just from a different political standpoint.[/QUOTE] Of course I would. But I wouldn't misrepresent my circumstances, which is what she's doing. At least you've stopped denying she's an activist. [QUOTE]I suppose the speeches of Bush?s that harped on WMDs, the speeches from Rumsfield that harped on WMDs, the speeches from Cheney that harped on WMDs?weren?t really about WMDs? Iraq?s noncompliance was incidental, because the only way to prove Iraq was noncompliant because they had WMDs (i.e., something to hide) was to?provide proof they had WMDs. And to this day, the only three people in the world that haven?t fully acknowledged Iraq?s WMDs were largely non-existent are Bush, Rumsfield, and Cheney. I suppose my paragraph here wasn?t really about WMDs, either, was it?[/QUOTE] And I suppose the British and Russian intelligence backing up those assertions weren't really about WMD's, either? Saddam spent a great deal of time and money to create a credible farce of having WMD's, and he succeeded. And, again, everyone in the UN believed that Saddam had WMD's. [QUOTE] They?ll look foolish? That?s incredibly trite and naïve. They report the news for the ratings. If a story doesn?t bring in viewers, if an item won?t boost Nielsen numbers and the similar systems?you won?t see it on the news. They report the news so they don?t look foolish? Complete and utter horse****. Look at it this way. If they didn?t want to appear foolish?they wouldn?t cover half of the crap we see every hour.[/QUOTE] Then what does their reporting of this issue have to do with anything? [QUOTE]From what I?ve seen from you in the past? The prototypical Republican mouthpiece? DeathBug, I don?t even know what you?re trying to get at here, but what I?m noting about you isn?t some outlandish and bizarre radical assessment. I?m not just coming out of left field on this one. I pigeonholed you into a stereotype? You pigeonholed yourself into a stereotype. Ironically, your dependence on sarcasm in your post is one of the plagues of your reply?simply, because it just doesn?t work. You?re trying to use sarcasm to sound clever, but you?re not being very witty at all, and frankly?the sarcasm just sounds like a teenager being pissed off. By the way, I can be just as mean, just as sarcastic, just as offensive as you can be, DeathBug, if not more. Keep that in mind if you want to continue trading barbs here.[/QUOTE] As I recall, you started 'trading barbs' first. You attacked me personally. Don't talk to me about 'barbs'. [QUOTE]Who gives two ****s? You don?t like how things work? It?s the same type of vitriolic rhetoric coming from the right, yourself included, DeathBug.[/QUOTE] I don't like how things work when they screw over the military. [QUOTE]And how does your Ideology work, anyway? Because someone disagrees with the reasoning for stepping into a theatre of war, they should treat the troops like subhuman degenerates? Yes, I think that?s your fundamental point in a nutshell, isn?t it? Unless I?m horribly misinterpreting your point here?that Ideology makes no sense at all. I don?t know if you?re playing the pseudo-philosopher or whatever, but even then?from a philosophical standpoint, your point is absurd and unrealistic?and we?re talking about a field where something like Solipsism isn?t completely unheard of.[/QUOTE] They shouldn't, but they do. And I'm not coming from a philosophical point of view; I'm coiming from a historical one. I'm not going to just let the protests get to the Vietnam level. The people running these campaigns are the same as from 30 years ago, and are already trying to use the same tactics. ("Maimed for a Lie" outside of vetern's hospitals, the ever-popular "We support your right to shoot your commanding officers", comparisons to Nazi's by liberal congressmen). If the protesters really cared about the troops, they would be discreet enough so that their protests aren't seen by the enemy. But one of the things we learn from history is that most people don't learn from history. [QUOTE]Why should you care what anyone thinks? You?re obviously so incredibly right here in labeling a grief-stricken, angry mother like she was some liberal nutcase you?d find distributing Truth Pamphlets in college towns in middle New York that you couldn?t possibly be utterly mistaken?or at least operating from such a skewed Ideological perspective as to view a situation in the extremes?couldn?t you? Again, I can be just as mean, just as sarcastic, just as offensive as you can be, DeathBug, if not more. Come on, man. Just get over yourself. Lol.[/QUOTE] You can be offensive, but you'd rather chose condescension. Just like you are to me, and just like you were to Trastic. Do you listen to yourself? You sound like a repriminding parent. I already know I sound pissed. [QUOTE]I?ve talked down to you in the past because in the past, you were pulling absolute bull****, like in that No Child Left Behind thread. In this thread, it?s no different; your posts are so incredibly transparent that anyone can see what your true modus operatum is. Face it, man. You?re just an angry teenager who?s become a mindless mouthpiece for your own political party. Go ahead and laugh at me. Shrug me off. I don?t care. Your negative reactions only further confirm what I?ve said here. Call me arrogant. Consider yourself right. Who gives a crap. Fact of the matter is, you don?t sound like anyone with an actual grasp on the issues here. You just sound like some mouthy teenage Republican.[/QUOTE] I'm not going to apologise for being passionate about an issue; I pasionatly dislike it when the military gets screwed. Apathy isn't a virtue. And if you honestly think I'm such a punk, why are you even talking to me? Unless, of course, it's a shallow attempt to make yourself look better at my supposed expense. The fact that you're using a public forum to attack my "perosnality flaws" suggests ths. Edit: And, I just realized our ocnversation has moved beyond Cindy Sheehan's actions, into my line of thought in coming to my opinion on Cindy Sheehan. Since this way lies flames, I'm going to withdraw. If anyone has anything to say regarding me personally, they may do it through a PM. As for Mrs. Sheehan, I've already stated my disapproval of her actions multiple times.

[quote name='Siren']DeathBug, you've gotta be kidding me, coming in here and spouting this garbage.[/quote] I've got the innate feeling I'm about to be talked down to by Siren again. [QUOTE] Yes, and there are those who join the military out of a sense of duty. But there are large numbers of soldiers, medics, mechanics, etc., who are merely taking advantage of an opportunity offered to them by the US Military so they can afford to attend higher education when their military service is up. So calling Ilium an "idiot" for believing that is out of line, DB. And even the "sense of duty" can be spun into "gung-ho" by the dutiful themselves, so let's keep that in mind.[/QUOTE] Here's an idea: how about you spend your entire life around the military, and meeting the people who make it work, and then you tell me about their reasons, and what they can and can't do. Any perosn with the courage and discipline to join the US militrary doesn't need the military to make something of their life, because they've already got the ability to be something without it. It's a matter of character, and the way your assertions portray them is insulting. [QUOTe]Shielding themselves with the bodies of their dead relatives? I wonder why "right-wing" is even included here, DB. For the purposes of this topic...if someone is speaking out against the President, or the war, they're not "right-wing." So even including "or right-wing" there sounds suspiciously like an entirely lame cop-out.[/QUOTE] And I wonder why this paragraph is even included here, as it adds nothing to our conversation. [QUOTE]This isn't a full-blown point, so don't quote it and attempt to refute it. It's merely an incidental. In something like Terry Shiavo, however, if Conservatives use Terry as a poster child (like they did) to push a political agenda, they're not using dead relatives as anything. Even Terry's parents didn't have a political agenda in mind when they were fighting to keep her on the feeding tube. They petitioned Jeb Bush, President Bush, etc., but was that political activism in the sense we're discussing here? I don't think so, really. They were desperate. And that leads me into my next point.[/QUOTE] If it's not a point, don't write three paragraphs about it and then tell not to "attempt to refute it", especially when you're trying to make my point look invalid by disputing a single clause of it. [QUOTE] Strong words without a shred of proof, DB. And you know, it actually sickens me to read this rubbish? You're attacking this woman--for all intents and purposes you're accusing her of being a two-faced, manipulative, exploitive snake--simply because in the grief of losing a son...in [b][i]desperation[/i][/b]...she's making a political statement.[/QUOTE] I am not attacking this woman; I pointed out the truth of what she's doing. I am attacking her actions. She is using her son's death to give her autohority she otherwise wouldn't have. And this is not an act of desperation anymore, if it ever was. You don't get a press secretary, a web ring, a fund-rasining organization, and collabortaiton with Micheal Moore and MoveOn.Org as an act of desperation; you do it as an act of activism. [QUOTE] Now, generally, I don't agree with most political activism--most [i]extreme[/i] political activism--but in this case? You have a woman who lost her son in war, and is upset enough to want to do something about why she lost her son. Whether or not you agree with her stance on things--or her political viewpoint--is not the issue here.[/QUOTE] Why isn't it? [url=http://www.truthout.org/cindy.shtml]She's certainly making it an issue.[/url] [QUOTE] "Activist" or not, to seemingly lump her in with the likes of Michael Moore is absurdly asinine, because Michael Moore [i]has no preceden[/i]t for the crap he pulls on a regular basis. He didn't get exploited by any big government. He's not losing money at the pump. He's not been shot by Charlton Heston. Bush didn't beat him up and steal his lunch money. His children (if he has any) haven't joined the Armed Services and become casualties of war.[/QUOTE] I didn't lump her in with Moore; she did, by co-ordinating with him. Or maybe her press secretary did it; I can't be sure. [QUOTE]At least this woman [i]has a reason[/i] for doing what she's doing. And she's only tripled her efforts after she lost her son. [b]How dare you criticize her for that.[/b][/QUOTE] Wow, it's almost like you're saying, because she lost her son, she's beyond all critisism. Gee, isn't that exactly what I just said she wanted to happen? [QUOTE]For that matter, so what if she's trying to put pressure on Bush? So what if she's trying to get all the media attention she can? What is so wrong with that?[/QUOTE] Maybe the fact that she's only getting it because her son died? It's almost ike she's milking his death for political attention... [QUOTE]You're knowledgeable about history, DB. You know about the 1960s. Vietnam, Flower Power, Born on the Fourth of July. Political activism has always largely been driven by personal/life experiences. You want to minimize this woman's actions...you're going to have to minimize history, man, right and left.[/QUOTE] I'm not minimizing her actions; I'm responding to them. History will judge if she made any impact. [QUOTE] And you know...I sincerely doubt you'd feel the same way about this type of issue if it were a Republican "exploiting" Terry Shiavo's media circus to propel their own political agenda. I'd like to think you'd hold the same types of criticisms...but there's a part of me that knows you'd be standing right there next to that Republican.[/QUOTE] Yes, because clearly, you know everything about me, and my motivations, and therefore have no problems personally attacking me, because you're so damned smart. [QUOTE]So...why not just tell us exactly why you dislike this woman so much? I admit, I find this entire circus silly, as I do all media circuses, but at least I'm not showing my claws like you are here.[/QUOTE] I don't dislike this woman any more than I dislike all misguided activists. What I dislike is her calluos use of her son's sacrifice. [QUOTE] If we're talking about the Iraq war itself? I support stabilizing nigh-Fascist regimes, and I do believe if we clear out Extremism in the Middle East, things will start looking up. But what I'm not about to do is blindly support the Iraq war, because we all know that the reasons for going to war in the first place were complete and utter misinformation.[/QUOTE] Yes, complete and utter misinformation [i]that the entire world believed.[/i] As you'll recall, the debate prior to the war was not whether or not Iraq had WMD's, but whether or not they should be given more time to comply with UN regulations. [QUOTE] Fox News covers the story because it gives their entertainer-cum-newscasters ratings (and yet another chance for that political soapbox, to boot). And let's face it. Both sides are using this woman as a political springboard.[/QUOTE] Which is easy to do when she's a political activist. She was prior to her son's death, as well. [QUOTE]Fox News covering the story doesn't mean they want to spread [i]her[/i] message. It means they want to spread [i]their[/i] message. Check out No-Spin Zone and you'll see what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE] Conservative broadcasters refer to it because they know the liberal ones are, and they'll look foolish if they ignore it. If they didn't feel they needed to report it in some fashion, they wouldn't. [QUOTE]It's funny how you criticize Ilium's post for being mindless and so forth, because I'm having difficulty in discerning any real, relevant material in your reply that isn't simply a Republican teenager being pissed off.[/QUOTE] Wow, and pigeonholing me into a stereotype makes you look so smart. How relevent are personal attacks? But, I'll give it to you: I am pissed off. I'm pissed off from the total bull being spouted about the armed forces. To hear the new party line, you'd think the lot of the US military are a bunch of stupid kids who can't make cognitive decisions. And I'm completely sick of "We support the troops, but not the war". Oh, we think want you're doing is evil and it should fail, because that would show the Bush Nazi's...but we think you guys are okay. BS. [QUOTE] Is that rubbish really necessary at all? Seriously, DB. The sarcasm, the trite, childish insults in your posts...prove to me that you're above all of that.[/QUOTE] Why should I care what you think, honestly? Every single time I disagree with you, you post from some supposed intellectual superiority and talk down to me and anyone else who disagrees with you. I'm not so shallow that I need the acceptance of others to know when I'm right.

I hate the phrase "Sold Out". She went for the money, as she should have. And she's still hot. And...well, that's the sum of my opinion on the subject.

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]I know this has already been answered, but I'm a fan of overkill. [/COLOR] [COLOR=DarkRed] 1) Why? Because I said that half the people who join the millitary do so because they're from unfortunate homesteads and they don't have the money to get a proper education anyway else, they have no choice but to join the Armed Forces. If people joined because they were itchin' to take out some of their anger, than they want to go to war and then it's their own damn fault if they get killed. But if you get sucked in to a War (Especially one as unfounded as The Iraqi Conflict) because it was your only choice for an education, that's just sad. Oh, and it's not my fault that people would rather live in Canada than go fight some muscle-flexin' war. [/QUOTE] If you honestly believe that, you're an idiot. The basic assumption you've got here is either people in the military are A) Losers who couldn't get an education or future for themselves on their own or B) Violent psychopaths. God forbid someone join because they believe in what they're doing. That never happens, does it? Maybe you should actually get some proof before you throw wild statistics about. [QUOTE]2) I have to agree with you here; the media is terrible. They're going to completely ignore the people who don't do this type of thing and go after the one who is, some of them showing her some support, others just mercilissly terring her apart with, frankly, idiotic and groundless arguments (See: Faux News) that make fun of her because she's a left-wing Liberal.[/QUOTE] Left-wing or right-wing, people who shiled themselves with the bodies of their dead relatives deserve critisism. [QUOTE]3) I don't think she's in it for her political views; she's already an activist with Moore and Moveon.org, she didn't need any other way to spout her Political agenda; maybe she wanted attention, maybe she was truely distraught that Bush had started a war that got her Son killed, I don't know, and unless you can read minds (Unlikely) you don't either.[/QUOTE] Don't be stupid; she already was an activist, and she's clearly using her son as a tool to further her activism. Now she's approaching from a standpoint of rightuos indignation, as though her son was an empty-minded idiot who didn't have any say in the matter. [QUOTE]4) This all depends on your point of view. If I knew somone who had joined the millitary because if she/he didn't she couldn't afford to to pay his/her bills or go to a college or whatever, and than a war as ill-thoughtout and terribly planned as the Iraqi conflict got said person killed, I would be terribly mad at the people (In this case, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Fahd, Rice, Powel, and the rest of the Neo-Con bum-buddies) who got him/her into the conflict. That's just my point of view, though.[/QUOTE] And the proof that this was the case is...? You can't just say it and automatically make it true. [QUOTE]5) Who's listening too her? If it wasn't for right-wing mega-corporations like Faux News plugging her every day just so they could insult her I don't think anyone would have heard about it after Day 2; Right-Wing media... it's own worst enemy.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] So...your theory is that a media outlet that's ideolgically opposed to her is going to give her free air time to further her views if they thought they didn't have to? Wow, that's almost as smart as your "All soldiers are poor psychos" argument. And even that brilliant logic is working under the assumption that "right wing" media is the only one giving her air-time, when it's clearly not. If only Fox News covered this story, you think anyone would care? [QUOTE] Am I human? No. I don't claim to be. But anyone as self-centered and wreckless and Bush is not, by my definition, and since this is only my opinion it's what I'm using, a human.[/QUOTE] Well, we're all glad to know that someone of your obvious intellect is finding time to define hummanity for us. If you're going to continue to spout such nonsense, you're right to not tie intelligence into hummanity.

[quote name='Circéus]I consider that Dubya do not belongs to [I]Homo sapiens sapiens[/I'] because he has displayed the common sense and IQ of a combined ton of krill.[/quote] Because everyone loves harsh accusations made with no support!

[QUOTE=Ilium][COLOR=DarkRed]Did he go there by choice or by "choice?" Because somtimes people have no choice but to join the millitary, and once your there you have no choice but to go to Iraq (See: People crossing over to Canada to avoid the war) [/COLOR][/QUOTE] Wow. Just...that was insulting to every person serving in the armed forces. You sck beyond all measure. ...So, is there going to be a story about the hundreds of parents who aren't acting a fool over the death of their sons/daughters? Honestly, this woman is using her son's death as a platform to spout her political opinions, then shielding herself from critisism with her son's body. She already had her audience with the President, but now that she's become more of an activist than she already was. The rest of her family has disavowed her actions, and her husband has divorced her because of this. If my father had been killed in Africa when he was there under the Clinton administration, I wouldn't have blamed the president. If he had been killed in the Middle EAst under the Bush administration, I wouldn't blame the president. This woman is pimping out her personal tragedy, and I'm sick of it. She's started giving advice on the Gaza strip and the tax code, for God's sake; why is anyone listening to her?

I've never liked a person in any significant way based on 'first sight'. However, I have deeply hated people based on 'first sight', and my hatred only increased when I actually got to know them. Make of it what you will.

[quote name='Charles']The media, movies, television in general constantly emphasize the importance of sex. [/quote] And your avatar. Sorry, I couldn't resist. =P Anyone, to be serious, who cares? Honestly, people are either pressuring you to have sex, or pressuring you not to, and it's bloody ridiculous. You shouldn't have sex before you're ready (Read: completely able to handle the potential consequences in all their various forms), but after you are, then who cares? Oh, and nineteen, virgin, saving it 'till marriage, and not because I'm afraid I'll go to Hell.

[QUOTE=Ailes de Velour][font=arial][size=1][color=darkorchid] My first and only prank call was to a rock radio station, 97.1 "97 X." [/font][/size][/color][/QUOTE] You live in the Bay area too? Coolio. I'm too boring (mature? Na.) to make prank calls, but I recieved one at work one time. It was 2 AM and I wanted to go home, but for reasons I don't understand, I played along. And I think I won, because I was so obnoxious to her that she yelled "**** you!" and hung up the phone. Darn right, lady...

I own: Trigun Outlaw Star Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season 1 I want to own: All Futurama Buffy vols. 2 & 3 Family Guy vol 1 Batman vol 1 Scrubs vol 1 And one or two Simpsons' seasons, but I'm not sure which ones...

[quote name='gaarasgirl90']Well everyone has there own oppinions. But if they took out everything, where would the story be? Speilburg couldn't just re-do exactly what the 1953 version or the book had done, it would be like the remake of Psycho, everything would be the same and there would have been no point in remaking it except to add speicial effects. A director has to have their own touch on a remake otherwise it's nothing. [/quote] I'm not saying that they can't deviate from the subject material; I'm just asking that they not suck. This one did. [QUOTE] As for Tom Cruise being a wuss, so what? not every movie hero has to be Mr. Fantastic. They can reflect on ordinry people too. I'm sure the most normal people would be even more terrified then him in the movie. I thought it was great that the hero was a bit of a screw-up, it added to the story.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between being flawed and being annoying. Funny you should say "Mr. Fantastic"; he was a flawed character who was still likeable. So was the Human Torch. Tom Cruise's character was a whiney pisher I felt no attatchment to. And, again, not all characters have to be likeable, but if your main character isn't likable, he dang well better be interesting. Cruise wasn't. [spoiler][QUOTE][spoiler]I did wonder why the aliens didn't take the planet when noone was here, but again, where would the story be?[/spoiler][/QUOTE] That plot-hole didn't exist at all in either the book or original movie. They changed it to make it "kewler", but it made no sense. if you're going to change a basic facet of the stoey, the change should still make sense. This didn't. [QUOTE][spoiler]Who cares where the son went on the hill top, there's many possibilities, he coulda been retreating with the military for all we know, maybe he hitched a ride for boston, I dunno.[/spoiler][/QUOTE] We were lead to believe that he'd died, and it was convincingly done. Fine. If you want him to be alive at the end, then you dang well better tell us how he survived. Failing to do so is lazy story- telling. [QUOTE][spoiler]How did he kill the dude? Well you saw he wasn't in his right mind after seeing the ships fertilizing the plants with human blood. I'm sure the now psychotic man wasn't thinking enough to defend himself properly and (Cruise) was also ready to do anything to protect his daughter. When you have that kind of devotion I bet you could find the will to kill someone easily.[/spoiler][/QUOTE] It's common knowledge that a person not in their right mind is harder to subdue or control than a rational person. If Cruise were deranged and the larger man rational, it'd make more sense than the other way around. I'm not saying that it's not possible; I'm saying that, again, the film-makers were being lazy by not showing how it was done. If you're going to defy logic, the audience deserves an explanation of how it was done.[/spoiler] Again, the film sacrificed substance for style, and it showed.

This decision happened about two weeks ago, and don't think there's been no response. Dozens of private groups and state governments have reacted to ensure that eminent domain is still viable in their own territories. This whole thing really shows how out-of-control the judicial branch of the government has become. How many people have heard of the trend some judges have of citing international law? Judicial activism is a crock, and it's tearing the country apart. After all, judges aren't accountable to anyone after they become judges. A judge should be an originalist, that sticks to the original document they're representing: the Constitution in this case. If you want to change the Constitution, you go through the Legislature, [b]not[/i] the judiciary. Hopefully, the new judges appointed to the Supreme Court will not be judicial activists. [url=http://www.limitedgov.org/sites/lg/common_sense.aspx?Title=Soutered%20for%20Bulldozing]And here's some happy news.[/url]

At the office I'm interning at, if I'm riding in an elevator alone, I'll do improve kareoke until the elevator stops. The worst part is that I chose the most obnoxious songs, because I am too sexy for my shirt. I haven't been caught yet. ^__^