Zeta

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]Thanks Drix, I'll get right on that! =D But I still say a firing squad is the way to go. And they can go back to what they did before the electric chair and equip every shooter but one with a blank cartidge so nobody knows who's going to kill the guy. And the reason Manson is still on death row is because the courts keep allowing the guy to appeal his case. [/color][/QUOTE] That is the same with all inmates on death row, lol. Their lawyers are going to keep appealing as long as they can.

[QUOTE] With a lethal injection Peterson is basically getting a shot that's gonna kill him. It won't even give him an agonizing painful death. It won't hurt him any more than if he went and got a vaccination at the doctor's office. I know this is going to sound bad and maybe a bit immature, but I think they should bring back the firing squade and hanging.[/QUOTE] Untrue. Lethal injection is not as good as everyone says it is, lol. I just watched a movie with a guy on death row who had been researching lethal injection. I believe the first thing that happens is it stops your breathing. So you are basically suffocating before it even kills you. I don't know about everyone else, but I don't find that to be painless, lol. [b]# Anesthetic - Sodium thiopental, which has the trademark name Pentothal, puts the inmate into a deep sleep. This drug is a barbiturate that induces general anesthesia when administered intravenously. It can reach effective clinical concentrations in the brain within 30 seconds, according to an Amnesty International report. For surgical operations, patients are given a dose of 100 to 150 milligrams over a period of 10 to 15 seconds. For executions, as many as 5 grams (5,000 mg) of Pentothal may be administered. This in itself is a lethal dose. It's believed by some that after this anesthetic is delivered, the inmate doesn't feel anything. # Saline solution flushes the intravenous line. # Paralyzing agent - Pancuronium bromide, also known as Pavulon, is a muscle relaxant that is given in a dose that stops breathing by paralyzing the diaphragm and lungs. Conventionally, this drug takes effect in one to three minutes after being injected. In many states, this drug is given in doses of up to 100 milligrams, a much higher dose than is used in surgical operations -- usually 40 to 100 micrograms per one kilogram of body weight. Other chemicals that can be used as a paralyzing agent include tubocurarine chloride and succinylcholine chloride. # Saline solution flushes the intravenous line. # Toxic agent (not used by all states) - Potassium chloride is given at a lethal dose in order to interrupt the electrical signaling essential to heart functions. This induces cardiac arrest.[/b] [url]http://people.howstuffworks.com/lethal-injection4.htm[/url] But yeah, anyways, I don't believe he will even get near the bed he willl have to lay down. Either the inmates will kill him, or it will be natural causes. If I am not mistaken, Charles Manson is on death row in California, and has yet to be put to death.

[QUOTE=James][color=#811C3A]Primarily, I'm just glad that this trial is over as a result of the insane media coverage of it. I can't help but wonder how many other things have gone uncovered due to this trial. Anyway, I don't really care much about the verdict, except to say that I don't think death is harsh enough. It's painless and the easy way out. I'd rather have him rot in prison for his entire life, with everything that it brings (ie: the violence and other things). At least that'd give him a taste of what he did to his poor wife and son.[/color][/QUOTE] Well, he probably will rot in prison anyways. Compared to all the people actually on death row, there are very few who actually get put to death. His lawyers will keep on appealing, heh. Of course it really only depends on the other people in prison. Other in prison don't really like those who murder kids. I myself believe he was guilty yes, but I didn't think that they would actually prove it. Some of the evidence was wishy washy in my mind. Like how they were using his grammer against him, lol. On an interview he said "she was a good woman." And everyone went, "omfg he is so guilty because he spoke of her in the past tense." *shrug* If I didn't believe he was guilty all ready, I would have just believe that it was a man who lost his wife and child, and with no ransom was obviously not going to be coming back to him. But hey, I'm happy it finally was over with as well. Don't see why it had to be all hyped up as well. :rolleyes: Edit: Crud, didn't see Xions post. >_>

Which is what I said in a previous post actually, lol. i know both sides are at fault. But my opinions on the matter stray towards the Israeli's side, it is just how I feel. Had Arafat accepted the terms, he could have spoken things over with the Israeli's for later things. I believe they would be much more inclined to negotiatie with a civilized leader and group of people, rather than those who try to force things to go their way. Obviously his way of doing things are not working, since the Palestinians still do not have their own country. By accepting the agreement in the first place they could have [i]something[/i] and could easliy get their views heard, rather than turning to terroristic ways. It is much easier to get things accomplished by sitting down and talking things over with the other party, rather than trying to force them.

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]Israeli soldiers have the choice to keep their guns pointed away from civilians. It doesn't take that much hand eye coordination you know! All I keep seeing in photos is Israelis pointing thier guns at women with their children. What's the point of that? They purposely pull the trigger too. Israelis kill civilians on puropse. Well I say to them: Sorry, jerks, you're gonna recieve some sort of retaliation! As for talking it out, it's happened before. Everytime, it was Israeli soldiers who broke the peace by killing civilians.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] But yet the Palestinians had a chance for peace, and they didn't take it. I know both sides are at fault. But what causes more overall damage? A suicide bomber, or on bullet? I don't agree with the actions of both sides. But I am definitly not going to side with the one who straps bombs to themselves and walks into a market/wherever it may be. I hear more about the suicide bombings than I do about Israeli shootings. A few quotes from [i]Time[/i] Magazine. "Arafat funded violent groups throughout the territories. Even in the optimistic early days after the signing of the Oslo accords, Arafat turned a blind eye when Palestinian terrorists bombed defenseless Israeli civilians. Apparently he believe that such acts would force concessions from Israel. What Palestinians needed was a leader like Neslon Mandela. What they got was a sort of Rober Mugabe. Good riddance, and please, no more crocodile tears." "Arafat imbued the Palestinian movement with self-deception. His legacy is a shattered economy, a bankrupt government and numerous militan organizations like Hamas." I am quite fond of the last one. What has he actually accomplished with his barbaric ways?

So Cold is a great song. Great music video as well. Haven't listened to their other songs though. Seems that when I like a song, all their other songs song. I am hesitant to try. But I might got and download a few now, if the CD in itself is good.

[quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f']No, I never said it was okay to bomb Israeli civilians. But the reality is, Israeli soldiers kill many palestinian civilians in cold blood. If I was living in palestine right now, I would be in danger of being killed by Israeli soldiers even if I didn't do anything wrong. Why does everyone support the Israeli defence force if the hurt civilians this way? They don't even think twice before killing. They've even killed Israelis simply because they though they were palestinians. Once, and Israeli man who was deaf got on a bus. He was suspected to be a suicide bomber simply because he overpayed. The bus driver decided to stop and call the Israeli defence force to investigate. They asked him to show them I.D, but he couldn't hear them so he didn't respond. Then they killed him. Only when they checked his pockets and found his wallet did they find out he was Israeli. I must say, what a responsible and professional way to deal with the situation.[/COLOR][/quote] And Palestinians kill many innocent Israeli's in cold bold. Hell, I can partly see where the Israeli's are coming from. They have been victim to many, many terrorist attacks. Of course they are jumpy. If the guy doesn't answer he could in fact be a suicide bomber. You live in an area where there are suicide bombings as often as there are there, and see how your nerves are. They have no idea who is there to kill them and who is not. The Palestinians have a choice as to not strap a bomb on themselves. The Israeli's don't have a choice when one shows up. Seriously you still haven't said why they don't just talk things over with the Israeli's rather than try to force it on them. It almost worked once, but it was the Palestinians who didn't go through with it.

And that just makes it ok for a Palestinian to run into a crowd with a bomb and kill many more innocent lives? Sure if the Palestinian didn't do anything wrong they have no right to be killed. Tell that to the Palestinians who blow themselves up in a crowd of Israeli's and kills them. Unfortunately I am not as up to do with the happenings going on over there. So I myself haven't heard of any of the Israeli things you said. I'm not saying they didn't happen, just that I haven't heard and don't wish to get myself in a pickle. But as far as we know, there may have been underlying reasons for why they chose what they did. Sure the people may have seemed innocent, but for all we know they could have been actually plotting their next bombing. *shrug* But that doesn't give Palestinians the right to go into a crowded market and blow themselves up, when a good majority of the people could have been trying their best to avoid the entire conflict. This may seem quite rude but I prefer less innocents over more innocents. *shrug* Again, it is just as easy to talk things over. Rather than resort to violence why not just work out something like was tried in the past. But there the Palestinians rejected the idea when they had most if not all of the land they wished for. Greedy people in my opinion. I still see no need for them to have the land if their means to go about it are barbaric. And lets say if they do get all the land they want. Who is to say they won't go and do exactly what the Israeli's did to them, onto the Israeli's who were just kicked out of their home, their land stolen from them. See? It is a no win situation. I prefer the one that doesn't run into a crowd with a bomb. Imagine what the Israeli's could do right now. They could go and destroy every Palestinian man, women, and child for all the suicide bombings. Yet they haven't.

[QUOTE]Self defense, my ******* ***. Israelis have killed hundreds more Palestinians than vice versa. Nope, they don't walk into a market and start shooting. That would take too much effort. Instead, they roll through the streets in Humvees and pick people off like deer or something.[/QUOTE] Why? Could it possibly be because the Palestinian's march into the market with a bomb strapped to themselves? It doesn't matter if the Israeli's kill more because of something the Palestinians did. If they didn't do it in the first place, the Israeli's wouldn't have. As I said before, it is a no win situation from what I can see. One of them will do something and the other will retaliate, then it will just continue on in a circle. You would thinking driving down the stree would take more effort since in the market everyone is much closer together, therefore one could kill more. Which is what the Palestinians do. I still haven't seen an answer as to why the Israeli's should do anything for the Palestinians if the Palestinians are trying to terrorize and force the Israeli's to do something. When you force someone to do something, the other will resist all the more. As Sciros said, the region was called Palestine, there was no nation. So the land didn't belong to them. The fact that the land belonged to the Jews a couple thousand years ago is still relevant. Those people could have descendents living there right now. Just because the ones living back then are dead, doesn't mean you can throw that fact out of the water. Palestinians could possibly start a new life if they actually decide to do something about it. Rather than sending people off to bomb markets and what not, why not just talk it over. I still don't see how by basically forcing the Israeli's to meet their demands is going to help them. It will only strengthen their resolve to fight back. You can get much farther in life if you sit and talk like civilized people, rather than by barbaric ways. Sorry I just don't agree with people who try to get their way by bombing innocent people. I find it barbaric and don't feel they deserve anything until they start to go about it like civilized people.

[quote name='Heezay]And just because the Israeli army uses bullets instead of bombs to kill random people, that makes [I]them[/I'] civilized? What the hell?[/quote] Well, they don't go into a market and start shooting do they? They do it in self defense if they must. Whereas the Palestinians do it to force what they want. :rolleyes: There is a difference. Adahn...let me see how I should phrase this. I am American first and foremost, and also a human... least I think. o_0 But yes, I stick by what I said. America had something coming to them for so long, it was going to happen eventually. All the attacks to American personel over seas and on the homefront. It was going to happen sooner or later. I would much rather prefer it didn't happen of course. But I just didn't look at it as something that was [i]never[/i] going to happen. *shrug* Take it how you will.

I know we brought September 11th onto ourselves. I never said we didn't deserve it at all, lol. Friends and I have always been saying we had something coming our way. I never said they shouldn't complain. I said they should go about their problems in a civilized way, not by sending suicide bombers into a market. :rolleyes: Chabichou, you still haven't said why you believe the Palestinians deserve the land. Why do they deserve it and the Israeli's don't? Why do you feel that everything should go to the Palestinians and leave the Israeli's nothing?

They had their chance when Clinton was our President? Not quite sure. Why didn't they take what they had at the time? Had they done that, they wouldn't have lost all that they have lost now. They brought this upon themselves. Why do they bomb streets? To get their point across? Sure it tells the Israeli's they want their own country, but it doesn't do them any good. The Israeli's retaliate to protect their rights. The peoples right not to be harmed. Maybe if they stopped sending their youth and everyone else out to bomb the Israeli's they could get somewhere. I don't see how that is going to help their cause. Maybe just stop with all the terrorist attacks and actually [i]talk[/i], like civilized people do, rather than force what they want. I understand what you are saying yes, but I'm still not buying that they deserve it.

Well the UN sucks iny my mind. That would again be like what James said I believe. I believe it was you who said that it should just be an international place? With the areas under UN control it would be the same thing. With that in place, I myself believe that there would be much more problems. The Israelis and the Palestinians will still continue to fight over the land, because each wants it. In my mind I think the Palestinians should just give it a break. Accept what they have and move on. They had their chance and blew it. Going about it the way they are won't make matters any better.

All the Resident Evil games on the first Playstation are the greatest game in my mind. Those are the only games on PS and the PS2 that I can play. I personally think all other game suck. These are the only games that kept me interested and on the edge of my seat suspense. I wan'ted to find out what happened to Bravo team in the first; what went on in Raccoon City with the outbreak, etc...Great games.

Le Baron [QUOTE]The Kan?aan never existed under any sovereignty. The Jews lived in Israel, founded and populated Jerusalem, and the surrounding settlements, and lived there until the Dia Spora. The Romans, or their ?lords? as you have claimed even recognized the fact that the land was Jewish, and owned by the Jews![/QUOTE] Drix said that I believe The I must have interpreted that wrong. From my understanding, that says that the Jews were there first. *shrug* Yes the soldier did the killing. But would he have if the ruler hadn't of told him/her to do so? No they wouldn't. It is the ruler killing the people, his soldiers as his medium. Again, aren't countries just people? Yes. But would they attack another country for land out of the blue? No. The leader would have to tell them to, even if they do not want to or not. As said above. The soldier is just the rulers medium. That is how I view it.

Garelock [QUOTE]Until people start speaking out against this war that would have innocent children shot at every single day then I don't even want to hear about abortion. Either you're pro life or pro death; you can't be both.[/QUOTE] A man is carrying a deadly disease that is transmitted just by touching another who has threatened to go and spread it. You choose to kill him. You are taking the life of an individual but are saving the lives of millions. Aren't you both here? You are pro death to kill the man who could possibly wipe out millions, but are saving the lives of the million, meaning you are pro death. Is that not both? Imagine if the US hadn't of used the atomic bomb. The Japanese were prepared to fight to the death, every single one of them. I've seen movies with kids no older than 10 being taugh how to shoot and kill someone. Everyone was going to fight the US invasion of the Japanese mainland. Imagine the deaths on the Japanese side. Imagine the deaths on the side of the Allies. The death toll would far exceed that which was caused by the atomic bomb. That is why the bomb was dropped. For a quick way that would minimize as much deaths as possible on both sides. Sure they killed a lot of people, but nothing compared to had the US actually invaded their homeland. You fail to realize that we [i]try[/i] to minimize as much casualties as possible. You make it seem that we just bomb the heck out of a town for the heck of it. We try to target the war facilities, but not all times are things in our favor. Especially during World War II when dropping bombs usually consisted of a gun look down from the plane. Did we go into Berling and just bomb the crap out of things non-military? What did the Germans do during the Blitz? They just bomb London. Not for war things. They bombed it to terrorize the people. From what I am getting, you believe that WWII was war we did not need to get involved in? Think logically. We weren't in the war for a good long time. But the war was so large it was spreading. It wouldn't matter if we wanted to be in it or not, it eventually would come to us. Which it did. Would you rather us just sit back and let them attack Pearl Harbor and do nothing about it? Please. No one is saying that things on the homefront are not terrorism. But again, look at the bigger picture. Do they hijack planes and crash them into buildings? Do they bomb naval ships? Bomb trains? No they don't. I think it is fair to say take care of the bigger problem first. That is my opinion anyways. Edit: Crud, Drix beat me to it. :wigout: Now, I was really informed on Communism awhile back but I do not remember as much as I hoped, but this is what I think. In theory, Communism is a great idea. With people all having jobs and what not, there would be no unemployed. The part I don't agree with is the tidbit saying something along the lines of "should be brought about by force onto the world", sorry I don't know the exact. ^_^;; Anyone know what I am talking about? But naturally I prefer the freedom that comes with Democracy.

[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1']A person doesn't shoot another person for land, a country does.[/size][/quote] Isn't it not the same thing? The ruler of the country wants it done, so he has others do it for him. It isn't the country by itself. The people themselves may not even want to do it. But they do it anyways because it is their leader. So wouldn't it technically(sp) be the ruler himself shooting, just through someone else? Now onto a point that was brought up by the creater of the thread. He/she said something along the lines of "Israelis occupying Palestinian lands." Who say is is their land? Sure their religion says that, but as does that for the Jews. Why do [i]Palestinians[/i] deserve the land and not the Jews? Who says they have top priority. Wasn't it settled that the Jews were their first? So how does that say the Jews are illegally living on Palestinian lands when it wasn't theirs in the first place? *shrug* I think my facts are straight, will have to re-read the thread to make sure. Garelock: Aren't all wars really fought over land anyways? I don't see why it seems like a big surprise to you. If not for land, why else would one go to war? Everyone wants more than what they have. It will always be that way. And the only reason to truly go to war to get more of something is land. I mean, you aren't going to go to war with a country because they have more pillows and only take the pillows. *shrug* I would kill you over something like this.

If a game is making me doze off, it is the worst game I have ever played. Only game that that has occured in. So yes, I think it is fair for me to say that. All other games have actually kept me awake while playing.

Halo 2. Horrible game. Here I was expecting a bad *** game and, in my mind at least, I got a load of crap. Cut scenes are choppy, textures are dodgy. Waste of my money. The game is dull. The story is blegh. Only game I have almost fallen asleep while playing. Sure, they spent most of the time on the multiplayer aspect, but who only buys games for that? If you want multiplayer, buy a computer game and play it online for free. I loathe this game. Yes there are a lot of fragments in my above post. I know. But I just hate the game too much that everything just poured out of me. I'm probably the only one who feels that way about this game, lol. o_0

[QUOTE]So, if you want peace- prepare for war.[/QUOTE] There is a very similar quote to that in the game Rome: Total War. Can't remember what exactly, but it read along the lines of what you wrote, I will get back with the exact quote once it pops up again. I agree with Adahn. The only way to get us all united is for something to threaten the existance of humanity. Then we would stop being power hungry. I believe this is explored in a set of Alternate History novels by Harry Turtledove. The books are about an alien race invading during World War II. The Axis powers and Allied powers all band together to stop the aliens. Haven't read them, but they sound good.

First I think you should define the small amounts he has taken before. Small as in 25 dollars? 100? If it is chum change, what is the big deal? I am sure everyone here has taken a good chunk of money from their parents, either their parents giving it to them for something specific and not getting that, or taking it themselves. Now if it was like 100 or something, I can see where it starts to get a big deal if he has done this before. But really, he said he would pay you back with his next paycheck. Wait until he gets his next paycheck and see if he does in fact pay you back. If he doesn't all the power to ya to press charges. Just make sure that he never gets your pin number again. Now if his past amounts have been big as well, then I would press charges. But like I said, if it was very small amounts the other times, no big deal in my mind. Well, that is what I would do anyways. *shrug* Besides, where is the fun in buying a family member a birthday present with them there? :p

[quote name='Kane][SIZE=1]Post-NJO ? As with Dave this is the first time I've heard anything of it, though I guess it was only a matter of time before the series was set to continue although the last book of the NJO did have a very "[I]series finale[/I']" feel to it. I'd say a post NJO triolgy might to a ST: TNG and go a couple of decades beyond the current timline, after all there's really only a lot of rebuilding going on at the moment in the Galaxy far, far away. [/SIZE][/quote] Yes very true. But I looked at it as a finale for the Original Trilogy characters roles, and not Star Wars as a whole. I don't know about you guys, but did anyone feel kind of sad when the NJO finished? I mean, it was a series going on for quite some time, through various books and e-books. You got to see new characters come and go, grow old, and the old grow older. I felt kind of sad when it was over. :(

Yeah, I believe it is due to come out sometime next year, not too sure. I think this trilogy will be the shift from the Original Trilogy characters to those introduced in the books, Jacen..Jaina...etc. If I remember correctly they take place a good deal of time after the NJO, not sure how long, but there is the possibility that the Original Trilogy characters have in fact passed on. :( *shrug* Knowing my luck I read the preview of it wrong and the trilogy actually takes place during the Clone Wars, lol. Just a fun filled thing I came across in Episode I. I was watching it the other day and when Amidala/Padme leaves Senator Palpatine's office to head back for Naboo, as the camera is cutting away or turning black, forgot how the screen transitions exactly. Does anyone else see a smile forming on Palpatine as it transitions? Everything is going to plan! :wigout:

Please, trivia doesn't prove anything. :p It is the debates that can come out of Star Wars that proves if one is a guru or not. Ain't that right Boba.';-) I r teh guru! :eek: Anywho....Lets see.....Oh yeah. Anyone have any ideas about what Troy Denning's post-NJO trilogy will be about? My favorite author and am very curious.

The reason why I believe that it wasn't just some person posing as him, is the look that Yoda and Mace had when informed it was Dyas that ordered the army. A look that struck me as :eek: . Like they possibly eventually found out he was a Dark Jedi and was killed by another Jedi or something. Or that he had actually been dead for far longer, than what was stated by Obi-Wan. Get what I am saying? Sounds kind of vague. Again, I agree with the idea that it was probably Sidious or Dooku posting, but it is fun to speculate. :D