Kent

Well contrary to what some may want from war with Iraq, I support the removal of Saddam because I believe that the people of Iraq deserve freedom and not the totalitarian rule of a stalinistic dictator. I also believe that North Korea is a nation to be dealt with on a different level. When you have 2 nuclear powers facing off, a "cold war" is a "better" way to go about the resolution of conflict. This applies even more so when you are facing a nation such as North Korea, who very well may use a nuclear weapon for unjust reasons. North Korea is a totally different scenerio when you are talking about war compared to Iraq, and frankly, if you can't see that for yourself, than you need a lesson on the last 60 years of world conflict. I also want to state again that you have completely taken the first gulf war in the wrong way. Saddam agreed to a cease fire with specific demands. This was the only reason the international community did not "destroy" Iraq. Now Saddam is not honoring that agrement and unlike presidents worried about scandal, "Bushy" is willing to deal with the situation. Oddly, all the support offered by democrates and the international community dissappeared when Bush entered office. Plus, I dont know if you have been paying attention, but Russia and France have very different reasons from you or the students at berkely for not wanting war. You see, France has now been discovered to be the number one seller of conventional weapons to Iraq, as well as one of the largest purchasers of Iraqi oil. A similar story exist with Russia, only Russia is getting deals from Iraq that involve the development of their own oil fields in Iraq. Unfortunatly for both of them, the Iraqi government still owes these two countries large quantities of money. If Saddam is removed and the Iraqi people are able to govern themselves, they will be able to sell their oil to counties like America and therefore collect a much greater profit. It could also be assumed that once Saddam was removed, any new government would not honor previous deals made by Saddam, hence, no collection of owed money for France and Russia. Of course, you already knew about the economic ties between Saddam, France and Russia... Im sure you were just asking for the sake of argument. I also want to ask you what the continual bombing of Iraq during the clinton administration would be? Would that be aggression or just plain fun and games to be ignored by all democrates? Would it also be safe to assume that you ignored the qoutes by our former Democratic leadership? I know you saw them, but you seemed to have skipped right over them when it came time to respond. I ask you this, do you want war? Then why would you suggest war with Korea? Why would you support the idea of Saddam keeping his power to do as he wishes to the Iraqi people? If I lived in Iraq and was not part of the bath party, I would consider myself in constant danger and in a state of civil war at all times. Do you mention the fact that Saddam can not hurt Americans because you believe that "since it doesn't hurt you, its o.k. to ignore." Or do you bring up the idea that Saddam can not hurt people because you know of the Ryson poison that turned up in Paris about 4 weeks ago, which originated from Terrorist training camps in northern Iraq? I am guessing that its neither of those and once again the anti-war agenda is stemming from anger directed at the current administration. No matter what the situation you need to realize this... I will not change my mind about the moral correctness of a war removing a dictator such as Saddam. (whether its the removal of Saddam or anyone else with such a horrible record) I will not change my opinion about the threat that Saddam currently poses to the middle east. However, I just might change my mind about all the "nice" things I said earlier in this thread about just how "moderate and independant" you are. (tn) I see more and more on every post that the argument against war is based on the positions of other countries and a "majority of americans" that has not been accounted for in any poll or study done. Standing back and allowing Saddam to carry on is far more morally incorrect than any actions yet to be taken.

Ok, I dont wanna get into the "wanna be mod area," but this has got to end. The last post by a mod was specific about the idea that this thread should not be about saddam. What was the very next post after that...? A long spew about bush and saddam. Lets stick to what elite posted and stay on topic. Reminder: the topic is about liberals and conservatives, NOT Iraq. But if you wanna go another 12 rounds with a moderate who pays attention to the media and not political satirists, Im always up for a good fight. Oh yea, tn, bush 41 got the job done just fine, and stopped because the world agreed that saddam would hold his end of the cease fire, which he didn't. And I'm sure you know thats why we are persuing the resolution of this "iraq problem" today, instead of when clinton tried to do it in 1998. (which he did do) "Someday, some way, I garuntee you he'll use the arsenall. Let there be no doubt we are prepared to act." " I know the people we may call upon in uniform are ready. The american people have to be ready as well." -Bill Clinton Feb. 1998 Both are excerpts from a speech following senate concurrent resolution 71. "If not, it's back to buisness. It is the use of force. It is a swift response militarily and by whatever other means may be necessary. -Tom Daschle Feb 1998 Also following that same resolution, which was sponsored by Mr. Daschle. So don't blast off your mouth about who didn't get the job done. And where was the protest then? This is about hate for the bush administration and partisian politics, not a hate for war and this sort of one sidedness proves that.

Ok, lady! (ha ha, that sounds like additude when taken out of context) After gohan and supreme Kai had a run in with buu, they both ended up on the planet of the Kais to remove and train with the Z sword. Gokou was granted a single day of life on earth by the grand kai for other reasons. (kai wanted to avoid going into training with gokou) After gokou's time ran up, he went to the after world, upon his arrival he inquired about gohans "status." Gokou learned that gohan was alive and then sensed him on the kai's planet. He went to where gohan was and stayed with gohan while gohan was training. During this training with the sword, gohan broke the z sword and released an imprisoned kai from it. This was the elder kai. Elder Kai had the ability to release a persons latent powers. The kai preformed this on gohan and the result was mystic gohan; a gohan more powerful than a ss3 with out any transformation. Gohan returned to earth and gave buu a beating, buu was out classed. buu retreated. He came back with a plan though... obsorb gotenks. Once buu obsorbed gotenks on earth, king yemma and both of the kais with gokou started to worry. (supreme and elder kai) Gohan who returned to earth as "mystic gohan" was getting beat down and everyone could tell he needed help. Yemma took action by bringing vegeta back to life and sending him to earth, and gokou also received life. The elder kai had given his own life to gokou so he could return to earth to help gohan. As gokou left, the kai asked about gokou's plan... realizing gokou had no plan, the kai gave gokou the " portia earrings." (I believe thats the name) The earrings would preform a permanant fusion for any two people who wore them. The fusion would create a single being, and would yeild greater results than the fusion dance ever would. With the earrings gokou returned to earth with the intention of fusing with gohan and creating the most powerful being ever. (I can only imagine, but maybe a good fanfic) Unfortuantly, gohan made a mistake and didnt catch the earring thrown to him by gokou. Buu had obsorbed gotenks to achieve his power... this power ran out after the thirty minute time limit for the fusion. Before gohan got the earring on, buu transformed to a less powerful form because of gotenks' fusion inside of buu wearing off. Seeing this, gokou asked that gohan not use the earring. Mistake. Buu manages to obsorb gohan and becomes far more powerful than before. Just as gokou is about to go insane thinking of a person to fuse with in lack of a gohan sub, vegeta arrives on earth by means of king yemma's attempt at helping out in the fight. Gokou senses the pressence of vegeta and eventually vegeta swallows his pride after being reminded of his loss of bulma and every other loved one. (Trunks and maybe a few friends) They fuse using the earrings... Vegetto. (note that this is not gogeta, the fusion of gokou and vegeta during movie 12/ "the rebirth of fusion." A fusion of the two by way of the fusion dance.) So that is how veggeto was created, hope that answered the question fully.;) -------------------------- Oh yea! back while gohan and supreme kai were fighting buu, just after buu's hatching, gokou and vegeta fought each other. Upon realizing he wouldnt win, vegeta snuck a cheap shot in and knocked gokou out. During that gohan and the Kai were defeated by buu. Vegeta showed up after this defeat and gave his life to destroy buu. (failed attempt at releasing all his energy in one blast, which would hopfully kill buu... it didn't.) Thats how vegeta died and thats the story for the prelude to the stuff I wrote above.

Its back... (with that freaky poltergiest girl voice) Thats right, Inu yasha is back online and cn is airing it once again in all its glory. Starting for now with the episode, "those who seek the jewel" and I imagine, continuing on for the next couple of weeks until they get to where they made it once before. I have been waiting for this to come back on since they took it off. Im actually recording the episodes now. Thought you all would like to know that the show is back, but I'm sure many of you know because you caught it by suprise just like me.

Man, it sure is cool that the final episodes of G are back on. After giant robo week inturpted my recording schedule, I wasnt sure if they would go back to airing it, but it looks like everything is ok. But like I said, it sure is good to have G back. I just love the second half of the series. The love story between domon and rain and the action take on a whole new level of excitment. oh yea, I though it would be nice to ressurect this thread since it should have never died, being that there have been 2 new G gundam threads while this one was there the whole time. Oh well, I mean, who would look for a thread first... Im just suprised that domon would post in one of the others without mentioning this threads existance. oh well.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ZxFrOgGie13 [/i] [B][font=arial][size=1] [color=blue] It takes a moment to fall in love, but it takes a lifetime to forget.[/color] ~*~Frogger~*~[/font][/size] [/B][/QUOTE] I couldn't have said it better myself and with that in mind, I really do wish you the best, as well as the strength and wisdom that none of us can ever obtain. Forget luck, this one has got to be all about your dedication to your own happiness.

Well Lady Macaiodh, although I know you are more of a liberal than anything else... I gotta say, you made a point that is worth more than any anti-war protestor could ever say. No one wants war, and to qoute a brilliant man, "no one loaths war more than the soldier." The truth is, although we all hate war, there are times that we must do things we hate. Empty the trash, cut the grass or wash the car... I hate doing them all, but they must be done. The removal of saddam is another task that must be addressed. If we allow him to carry on his stalinistic dictatorship, we will see more innocents die by his own hands or the hands of his secret service than america COULD possibly kill in a war with Iraq.

What Lady M has said is just about all that needs to be said. What goes around comes around. I think that no matter who you are, you can do better than some cheating bum. No matter who you are, you can do better, and remember that. I just wish that I could have put my point across as well as Lady M. So listen to her, she has given the best advice yet and I suggest you listen.

Actually, as odd and off topic this may be... I just have to mention it. In france (thats right france, for gods sake, FRANCE!) there was a pro american rally. Can you believe that. I guess blanket statments and stereotypes need to be banned for ever now, because hell has just frozen over.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i] [B][color=#808080]Well, it depends. If you are in a relationship, it's reasonable for a deep bond to form. If you cheat on a girl, you really do deserve for her to go nuts on you. lol But if you just break up with her...well, that's completely different. If you are just breaking up and there is no cheating, then you certainly [i]don't[/i] deserve to be treated in that way.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Its also immoral. which I know that you know. I think the odest thing about cheaters and cheating is... For reasons of hypothetical example, work with me here. A guy has a girlfriend, she cheats on him with a random dude. When the guy finds out that his girl is cheating on him, he gets mad at the other guy and doesn't get nearly as mad with the girl. All though I can understand the emotions that drive a person to do what I mention above... I just dont see much sense in it. I think the proper response would be to address the cheater and leave the "dude" out of it. I want to say Im sorry about your situation and I wish you luck. I dont really know what to say beyond that. I also want to mention that cheating is not a thing of circumstance as so many victims would like to think... "oh I was drunk... blah blah blah" It a charactor thing, not a situation thing. I learned from my mom of all people when I was younger that if I get a girlfriend who hasn't broken up with her current boyfriend before she goes out with me... she's gonna get another boyfriend before she breaks up with me. If you hook up with someone and they are cheating on their "person" to be with you, then they will cheat on you to be with someone else. Once again... good luck and I wish you the best.

I've already made my opinion clear... But I wanted to say. See Lady Macaiodh, we can agree on some things.:D

Oh yea... dude, Im 21 and didnt have to worry about shaving till I was about 19/20. But I have a picture in the picture forum... its the second picture in the thread on the first page. I have a beard with no doubt. I also was something of a late bloomer... but hey, maybe we will live longer.lol.

Sure, I will be happy to let you know personally when I am let down by your post. About protest and change... Speaking loudly and protesting doesnt mean you want the "betterment" of mankind any more than the other party, it merely means that you are willing to march in the streets while the other party considers it wasted energy. I believe I made myself clear, but I think its funny... 2.5 kids, suv's and mansions. What a joke. Do you think all the soccer moms I've rode with, who had gore stickers were just putting those bumper stickers on to even out the stereotypes? I garuntee that for every suv driving conservative, there is another suv driver who is liberal. I guess those liberal suv drivers aren't comfortable though. Are there not mansions on the west coast? I could be wrong, but isn't there a cliche term that says something like "limousine liberals." Enough about stereotypes though. Oddly, look at protestors who oppose abortion, they seem pretty damn vocal to me and they are protesting for the change of a supreme court decision that makes it ok to kill babies. What I am trying to get at is that protesting doesn't indincate that you desire change more than any other person. (although anti-war protesting infact is trying to stop the change in the middle east and protect saddam.) Conservatives know that it is smarter to make your voice count by doing two things... 1. put your money where your mouth is. (and dont tell me liberals dont have money... Can you say "martin sheen"?) 2. conservatives know it is a whole lot easier to show up and vote or express yourself with a congress person, than it is to protest and hope people notice. I am saying that the "condensending" comments made about conservatives were stupid and wrong. Spin control is what I see here. (although I still consider your views to be valid, as well as apologetic at times like this... looking at bg as I say this.) If you dont like stereotypes, then dont perpetuate their use. This gives me insight into just how independent the thoughts of the people here are. And that makes me wonder about the opinions I have come to form over the time I have been here.

Ewww, I would have to say that the human being represents me the best. Being a huge republican all I want is the destruction of the planet and the mistreatment of my fellow man. I wish to destroy and take. I am greedy and mean. All of my drive comes from the evil in my soul and my only goal is to be in a better position than the rest of you... Of course that is a bad joke, just kinda pissed right now... I would say the best animal to represent me would be any sort of laburador retreiver. I am loyal and intelligent. I care for those that care about me and I always love to play. Plus, I love to sit around and pant all day.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by {SITH} Change [/i] [B]I would say that the threat should be determined by your personal philosophy. If you belive is conservatism, you are afraid of change, you wish to hold back society from the brink of rapid progress and slow things down. If you are a liberal, you look ahead and take the plunge, you go for the gold. [/B][/QUOTE] I am truely dissapointed with this sort of thought. (I guess I shouldn't have expected much in the first place... right?) And this goes for both of you. I think this sort of post is exactly what I needed earlier on when I was trying to show how pointless a thread like this is. This sort of stereotyping is what makes liberals look bad. I mean, conservatives trying to hold back society from progress...!? And liberals pushing the limits, going for the gold, trying to make the world a better place...!? I think that is about all you need to say to show exactly who is the closed minded type. If you think that conservatives don't want cures for disease or advances in technology your a fool. What you said about conservatives and liberals has no base and is purely your own subjective opinion. Im just taking a guess here, but would it be a stretch to say your a liberal? Or would it be safe to say that your one of the evil ones who want to hold society back from making progress. I would say your taking the plunge. You know, "going for the gold." If this sort of thinking was widely accepted as true, then it would be just as acceptable to say that liberals have no moral restraints... i.e. cloning of humans, killing babies. (aka abortion) I know that liberals are not immoral, but atleast I have the common sense to recognize the fact that not all liberals are ok with partial birth abortion or full on cloning of human beings. I have the sense to know that there are different degrees to every political group, including liberals. Seeing that liberals are not all extremist is just as important as seeing that all conservatives are not evangelical christians. Unfortunatly, as a moderate conservative, I often find myself being stereotyped and insulted by people making comments like yours. This is just rediculus and the thought of liberals being the only ones wishing for the betterment and furthering of human progress is only a testiment towards your own ignorance.

Well although I tend to agree with James on the fact that there are times when fox does interupt during interviews... I also still see the channel as a balanced news service consisting of many liberals who have left their previous networks for the creative freedom of fox. (mort kondrake with a slew of others) But most of all, when I see CNN I see the channel that refused to call the nine eleven hijackers and the suicide bombers in palestine terrorist. And thats the truth... they wouldn't reffer to those people as terrorist...?! Thats not moderate or balanced. That is straight up wrong and extremly leftist. I know that fox has conservatives like cal thomas and shawn hannity, but it also has independents like Bill Orielly and Neil Cavuto, as well as liberals like Alan colmes and Mara Liasson. (Mara is from NPR and on special report.) Fair and balanced means that for every conservative, there is a liberal. Fox does a better job with that than any of the network news companies. And calling someone ignorant because they see a bias to the media in a country you dont even live in, is, well...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by BabyGirl [/i] [B][color=deeppink]It depends on which part of media you're talking about, I don't think that really any form of media can be considered to have a political affiliation... Yet, I'm assuming that you were talking about Hollywood media. In that case, I still don't think it's really fair to put it under a political party, but I see where you're coming from.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] I actually think that this "leftist media" is reffering to the leftist views of the network news channels in america. CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, Headline News... Not to mention the radio (NPR is hardcore leftist) Those are all notoriously liberal networks/channels. But I really dont mind having that one sidedness, because fox is a moderate channel and is killing all the others in ratings. So I guess what the people want, the people will have... or try and make the most popular. Either way, there is a leftist bias in the mainstream media, as well as the hollywood area of things as you had mentioned. But as for war coverage, I will believe what I see, and hear from the first hand sources that are actually there. Not that your opinion doesnt matter, but I dont know about your experience with censorship as a foriegn war correspondent. I do know that any government monitoring going on in america is nothing compared to the fellas with kalashnikov's standing behind weapons inspectors at all times. But I guess you have to know what that kalashnikov is before you know what Im talking about. (Im sure you as well as any one with a college edu, knows what the kalashnikov is.) Thats off subject so please exscue me... sorry. *gives the bull horn back to the rightful owner*

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B]Anyway, I don't think the threat lies within what party affiliation you are with whether you consider yourself conservative or liberal (both terms which do not heed their own meaning). The thread lies within those people who are willing to throw bombs at us and kill our people. There only one way to deal with those people and both parties have to do it, whether or not they like it. [/B][/QUOTE] Perfect... This is the sort of point that I have had to try and make millions of times over. I think that sort of point is what made it really hard for me to not bash on liberals, because I hate to say it, but all those anti-war protestors in the streets talking about blood for oil are liberals. I mean, I hate to say it, but the liberal anti-war protestors were the reason america allowed pol pot to murder 2 million cambodians in an ideological cleansing after america pulled out of vietnam. Like I said though, I dont like the idea of bashing nor do I like this threads subject very much. Hey hey hey... I was right in my earlier statment that james wouldnt like this thread just like me. I still want to stress that this sort of picking who's better is silly. Both parties have problems and both have good sides. I think that becoming a single conscience as the american nation would be the best thing for us right now.

My opinion... Thank god its gone... or is it? I bet you knew that would be coming from me though. Actually I dont really care if its around or not because I like to let people have what they want. Plus, I was a fan of dre, cube, t and dogg at one point, so I cant be too hard on them.

hee hee, that was a good one. "Wannabe modism." I'm not playing mod, Im simply stating the obvious. Do you really think that either party is worse? Im a republican, and there are a million nasty things I could say about liberals. But all of them would be pushing subjective ideology that has no more base than the argument that the iraq situation is all about oil. Im sorry if you think Im ruining a well thought out idea, but you gotta realize. No one has said anything here that was worth the time it took to write it, except for the few here who were open minded enough to see that neither party is worse than the other. If it makes you feel better, Im gonna go back and edit my post so there is nothing bad about your topic. Feel better now...:bawl: Well its ok cause I just went back and edited my honest and hurtful words...:p Although I should point out that what you qouted of me is a true statment... I mean, whose worse... Sure, we could sit and argue about it, but we all know that both sides are pretty crappy at times. I think this is just the same as saying "whose better." I also think its really, REALLY important to mention that I have a ton of pent up hostility for liberals ranging from subjects like abortion and anti war protest to the lack of proper treatment and appointment of minorities. I will admit that I am being a tad bit harsh, but I guess I have lost a lot of patience for political topics over the last few months. Anti-war protest, war, terrorism, partisan politics... this stuff eventually gets to me and makes me one sour person.

I think that this is almost the furthest thing possible from an honest intellectual/political subject possible. The only thing intellectual about this has been the honest and independent views of those like babygirl and endymion. (who I believe are both democrates... nothing wrong with that though...) So my point is... neither side is a bigger threat, and for that matter neither side is a threat. period. Both add to the stability and ever adapting atmosphere of the american world of politics. Sure, both sides have their faults, but both have greater aspects that are always over looked. I also thought it would be a good point to make that all the stereotypical crap you wrote in the thread starter was just great... I mean, war-mongers vs tree huggers, what a great idea.

Yea spydor, with that banner you just managed to put across the hardcore christian vibe... Hey, don't worry, its cool with me. I might not be right up your alley, but some christians might be in for a shock if they were to ask for the ethics of a person who comes from a background such as my own. No matter what the case... wrist cutter is actually right in a way... Just about no one is willing to change their minds anymore.

not bad, I just wish right wingers would come up with crap like this.

Oh dear god... please tell me this is really a joke and that there will be no fast and furious 2. Good god man, do you people have any clue how many idiots this movie effected. I cant go any where without running into "vin desiel's driver." god help me and anyone else who hates the whole idea driving idiot f&f fans. Nothing personal intended towards some of you guys.

Seven Samurai. Otherwise I dont know too many. I will mention a great movie that is chinesse. I dont really remember the name exactly but... "iron and silk" Its really cool and its about an american who goes to china to teach, but ends up getting into kung fu. This and love change his life while he is there. I strongly suggest it.