Boba Fett

[quote name='KnightOfTheRose][size=1']I'm into monocromatic posts.[/size][/quote] [color=green]I'm into monoc[b]h[/b]romatic posts as well.[/color]

[quote name='Terrax']watch episode 1 again, that scene you will see that i am telling the truth and i will laugh in your face haha!![/quote] [color=green][strike]You sir, are a retard.[/strike] I respectfully disagree. Since Jar Jar did get in the way and stall R2-D2 for a few seconds, we?ll never know if that laser bolt would have changed the fate of galactic history. For all we know, the lift might not have been powered up and R2 would have had to wait. Or perhaps R2 would have fixed the ship then been blown away. We?ll never know. Let?s stick to the facts.[/color]

[color=green]Yeah, I've entered the "Wonder how many smartass comments I can make and people I can piss off" stage. As for Jar Jar, I'd say that "failed as comic relief" is a huge understatement. He single-handedly crappified Episode I with his retarded antics that marred an already weak plotline. I'd personally like to see him fall our of the Naboo delegation's hoverpod in the senate chamber and splatter onto the floor far below in Episode III. Hell, that'd make the movie a smash hit all by itself.[/color]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]I didn't really get a chance to form an opinion yet, but my mom thought it was a waste because they didn't do that for Johnson or Nixon adn she doesn't feel that they'll do it for anyone else, definately not Clinton. So, what are your takes on that?[/color][/QUOTE] [color=green]It's really up to the president in office and the relative feelings towards the recently deceased former president. Nixon was a crook, no matter what he said, and was almost as big a disgrace to the presidency as Clinton. Johnson really wasn?t significant enough to warrant a national holiday, although it certainly could have happened. Overall, I didn?t think it was necessary, but it was a nice tribute to one of the greatest presidents our nation has ever known. On a completely different note, I'm just frankly shocked by some of the disgusting things people have posted here. It's one thing to be pithy and make smartass comments, it's another to insult a dead man. This is neither the time nor the place for such remarks.[/color]

[quote name='Terrax']star wars is the best, the only thing wrong with them is that with episodes 1,2, and 3[/quote] [color=green]Episode III? It?s not even out yet. How the hell can you criticize a movie that [I]hasn?t even been released yet[/I].[/color] [quote name='Terrax']no more ja jas[/quote] [color=green]There aren?t any ?ja jas?. Go back to sleep.[/color] [quote name='Terrax']without him the bad guys would have won for example in Ep1, on the naboo cruiser when there escaping and all the r2 droids are rushing outside to fix the shield generator, or something, R2d2 bumps into jaja delaying him about 2 seconds, so when,he pops outside a laser blast shoots past where he would have been had he not bumped it jaja.[/quote] [color=green]When R2-D2 bumps into [b]Jar Jar[/b] on his way up to fix the damaged hardware on the Queen?s cruiser, he doesn?t conclusively do anything. It?s impossible to tell what would or wouldn?t have happened, so let?s stick to the facts. Its far easier to blame Jar Jar for the Empire?s rise through his decision to call a vote to give the chancellor emergency powers in Episode II.[/color] [quote name='Terrax']but i still say star wars would be better with no more jajas.[/quote] [color=green]Do me a favor. Use spellcheck. Right now, Jar Jar?s grammar and sentence composition skills are looking superior to yours.[/color]

[quote name='Terrax']if you are a true friend it shouldn't matter religion, your friend is into, even if they are a devil worshiper or something freaky like that, you shouldn't just abanddon them because of their religious beliefs.[/quote] [color=green][I]Hello, my name is David Koresh. Just because I?m a Christian militant wackjob, doesn?t mean you can?t be my friend. Hello, my name is Osama Bin Laden. I support killing innocent American civilians because they wont leave Saudi Arabia. Just because I?m a Wahhabbist weirdo, doesn?t mean you can?t be my friend.[/I] Remember kids, you shouldn?t abandon your friends because of their religious beliefs, even if they are ?something freaky?.[/color]

[quote name='Terrax']im very anti-bush so anybody other than him would be an improvement[/quote] [color=green]You sound like a very well informed and politically savvy individual. Mind sharing why you don't like Bush?[/color]

[quote name='Unborn Lord Xion][SIZE=1][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue]And it's not a perversion, it's her choice.[/COLOR'][/SIZE][/quote] [color=green][URL=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perversion]Dictionary.com defines perversion as the act of being perverted.[/URL] [URL=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perverted]Dictionary.com defines perverted as ?deviating from what is seen as right and correct?.[/URL] I?d say that [b]most[/b] people would agree that writing about a sexual relationship between a fifteen-year-old boy and thirty-five-year-old man for gratification is neither right nor correct.[/color]

[color=green]The [/color][URL=http://www.dictionary.com]Dictionary[/URL] [color=green]and a[/color] [URL=http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/]Guide to Grammar and Writing[/URL][color=green] are provided here for your use.[/color] [color=green]That is all.[/color]

[quote name='Unborn Lord Xion][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue][SIZE=1]Today, me and a friend had an argument. This argument has posed a question that I think needs to be resolved. But first, some backstory.[/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote] [color=green][b]Today, my dog and [u]I[/u] had the misfortune of coming across a skunk.[/b] That however, is irrelevant.[/color] [quote name='Unborn Lord Xion][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue][SIZE=1]My friend is an avid reader and writer of Slash fanfiction (guy x guy couplings). I am perfectly fine with slash and homosexuality, I just generally don't read Yaoi fanfics. One of her preferred media for fanfiction is Harry Potter. One of her favorite couplings is Harry x Snape.[/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote] [color=green]Thank you for sharing your friend?s perversions with us. We all really needed to know that your friend enjoys reading about gay sex between teenagers and adults.[/color] [QUOTE=Unborn Lord Xion][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue][SIZE=1]It's pedophilia. This is what caused the true argument to arise. We both agree on one thing. Pedophilia is wrong. However, it's our definitions of pedophilia that has caused the argument. You see, she agrees that a 6-year old and a 40-year old is very, very bad. So do I. But then we differ. She sees no problem with a 15-year old and a 35-year old. I do.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [color=green]Hopefully the wizarding world has something resembling the ACLU, so that if this ever were to occur, Snape would have some support structure within the magical legal system. After all, we wouldn?t want a greasy haired, tattooed man who is sexually attracted to young boys to be unfairly judged.[/color] [quote name='Unborn Lord Xion][COLOR=DarkSlateBlue][SIZE=1]What's your stand on the issue? Is she right, is love no matter what the age gaps, more important; or am I right, is the simple fact that one person is (in this case) 15 and the other is 35 more important?[/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote] [color=green]I move to throw out this entire issue due to the fact that this entire question is based on a fictional scenario, even if that is a minor technicality. Hey, if the [URL=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122614,00.html]Supreme Court[/URL] can do it, why can?t I?[/color]

[quote name='White Akita][SIZE=3][COLOR=DeepSkyBlue]Who here, has ever lost friends over your religion because they are scared of it? I personally, have had parents say to me I'm not welcome in their house anymore, because I read a witchcraft spellbook, and have a fancy for candles and anything sharp. Because of a little thing like that, I'm not welcome. [/COLOR'][/SIZE][/quote] [color=green]Let me see? Personally, I wouldn?t be too keen on allowing people with a fancy for ?anything sharp? into my house. Combine that lust for dangerous objects with candle-mania, and now you have two possible hazards. Could be that your parents are very cautious people, or perhaps they are sticklers for proper use of the English language.[/color] [quote name='White Akita][SIZE=3][COLOR=DeepSkyBlue] Because I have my own beliefs, it doesn't mean I'm different than anybody else. I have had a friend litterally shun me out because I used one of her candles, and made one of my own from it, by scratching things into it. I just feel it helps me get over certain dilemas. It helps me "burn away" old desires. But I guess that scares her. Losing friends.....I don't care anymore, but losing the best friends over a religion or belief, thats absurd. :flaming: What do you think?[/COLOR'][/SIZE][/quote] [color=green]I?d be more than a little irked if someone began carving something of mine up with a knife? Maybe you should respect the property of others, and people will have some incentive to befriend you.[/color]

[color=green]I?m into good grammar and intelligent thought. Correct spelling is a great passion of mine as well. In addition, I enjoy thought-provoking text and well thought out ideas. Unique, eh?[/color]

[QUOTE=Ryan][font=Microsoft Sans Serif][color=sienna][/color][/font][font=Microsoft Sans Serif][size=1][color=sienna] I eventually got bored and just made out with my girlfriend the rest of the movie. [/color][/size][/font] [/QUOTE] [color=green]That makes two of us. I personally tired of the liberal slant. Honestly, the portrayal of the fictional administration in that movie was unnecessarily close to (and critical of) the Bush administration to the extent where I expected to see" paid for by John Kerry" at the end.[/color]

[color=green]I'm going with a bunch of friends to see [u]The Day After Tomorrow[/u] this afternoon/night. I'll let you know what I thought of it. We decided to see it, instead of Shrek 2 or some other movie, at random. I'm a sucker for end of the world movies, so I really didn?t mind. From the trailers I've seen, it looks like a bunch of special effects with some plots thrown in so it can be marketed as movie. We'll see?[/color]

[quote name='Charles']The latest celebrity gossip dominates real world events. Feckless teens probably recognize Colin Farrel or Ben Afleck over the Vice President. It's almost like a sequestered state of existance. In this election year, I'll even wager that new voters, like still-training puppies would fail to identify Hosny Mubarak by name if tested.[/quote] [color=green]I couldn?t agree with that statement more. It?s amazing how many people will spend the better part of an hour attempting to call into American Idol, but wouldn?t think of taking the time to register to vote in the upcoming presidential election. Best not to hang out with that crowd, if you ask me. Anyone who either isn?t aware of reasonably current events, or has no desire to be, isn?t worth your time.[/color] [quote name='Charles']So, how important are celebrities to you and what is your opinion of how they are portrayed in the media compared to other news? Do they really belong in newspapers or on local news reports?[/quote] [color=green]With this newfangled invention called ?cable?, and the 24-hour news networks it has spawned, there simply doesn?t seem to be enough real news to report. Celebrity antics fill the downtime, and apparently people care. I personally could care less who dumped whom or which actor got a role in which movie. The only reason I?d even think of paying attention to these silly people and their pathetic lives would be so that I can compete in the next edition of trivial pursuit.[/color] [quote name='Charles']This is celebrity society.[/quote] [color=green]I shudder to think that these are the people that the ?masses? idolize and emulate. These people are, for the most part, exactly who you [I]don?t[/I] want to be like? ?unless drug abuse, stupidity and utter loss of contact with reality are your ideal virtues.[/color]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]Besides, Bush is against more that abortion and gay rights. While govenor of Texas he made a few speeches against paganism as well saying that he hopes the military will rethink their hasty descision. In 1986 an ammendment was added to the constitution making paganism a government protected religion. If Bush is willing to involve himself in people's sex lives, who's to say he wouldn't consider revoking people's freedom of religion as well? [/color][/QUOTE] [color=green]Erm? after reviewing both the Texas state and US constitutions, I still cannot find any amendment to either one protecting paganism, in 1986 or any other year. Furthermore, I'm unable to find any speeches of Bush's that attack paganism. Could you link me to evidence of either of these? Or even site a text source so I could look it up?[/color]

[quote name='MistressRoxie][color=#9933ff']I assume he's referring to the patriot act, which basically says the government can tap all phone calls on pay phones (haven't you seen the stickers on those things?) and hold a "suspected terrorist" longer than 48 hours with out an attorney, and a bunch of other ludicrious things that DIRECTLY violates right guaranteed under the constitution, I believe. Damn you Bush administration. Where do you get off violating our rights as citizens of the US?[/color][/quote] [color=green]While I agree it's disconcerting that the federal government now has far more freedom to obtain information, without warrants, than it used to, I'd argue that these "violations" of civil rights shouldn?t be greeted with such outcry. This is not the first time that the right of habeas corpus, or the right to be told why you're in jail, and the subsequent duration of time in which you must be charged with a crime or be released, has been suspended. Abraham Lincoln did this for the first time during the civil war. Woodrow Wilson also used this suspension to further U.S. interests in World War I. Also, this doesn?t violate the constitution. The president is within his powers to suspend habeas corpus. This power was given to him by congress through the use of the elastic clause, just as the power to declare war was. While I agree that it's uncomfortable to know that this could happen to you, or any other innocent American, it's an important tool in fighting the war on terror. Ultimately, it comes down to how much you trust the government. There's also a very fine line between protecting citizens and controlling them. If we do violate constitutional rights, are we really protecting what we claim to be fighting for? Both sides of this issue are easily seen, at least by me, but I just thought I'd express my opinion and provide some historical context which would allow people to make more informed decisions about this matter.[/color]

[quote name='Adora']Well, lets start with the links I posted. Did you actually read them or just look for a link to disprove HRW? Iraqi females now terrified to go outside their homes. Civillians being shot for no reason other than there is a military where there should be a police. The ransacked museums and hospitals. Hell, the hospitals that still have regular power blackouts. The UN pulling out.[/quote] [color=green]I read both stories on the Human Rights Watch that you posted links to, as well as several others on their site. Their bias wasn?t hard to detect, in fact I couldn?t find a single statement of praise for coalition forces on the website. Surely we've done something right over there? I then searched with Yahoo for anything that could verify my suspicions about HRW's leftist agenda. I was able to find a post on another, conservative, forum that exposed several problems with HRW's coverage of the war in Iraq. [URL=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1039619/posts]Here's the site[/URL][/color] [color=green]As for the regrettable shootings of journalists covering the action in Iraq, it's something that happens in war. If there are people in the area who aren?t enemy combatants, they may get hurt. There's not much we can do to avoid incidents like this, although the military does its best. However, if you seriously think that US forces would intentionally shoot at innocent bystanders/journalists? I'm not even going to argue the point with you. If you feel that way... I don?t know what to tell you. By the way, that goes for the group of Iraqis that appear to have run a roadblock in Tirkrit as well and were attacked by US forces. I've read your responses to my last post, and I'm shaking my head in amazement. You're arguments, while well conceived and pleasantly concise, go from extreme to downright amazingly absurd. I still can't imagine anyone could actually believe that the US military would intentionally harm civilians. Its obvious this isn?t going anywhere and that you'll attempt to shoot down whatever I say with statements reminiscent of Michael Moore (Specifically the President --> Thief business). Utterly pointless? Good Show.[/color]

[color=green]I hate not being able to vote? So come Election Day, I'll be using the day off from school to hand out "I Voted Today" stickers. That and scowling at Kerry supporters. Got to love politics.[/color]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']How is that any different from the bias you obviously have for "Republicans." Judging by your "logic," I should not believe a word you say. You cannot discredit information because a group has a political bias, if that was the case, everything on "FOX NEWS" is not true and everything "you" say is just plain silly.[/quote] [color=green]Yes, I am biased. I tend to think right of center. We're all biased, some more than others. You're biased left of center Transtic Nerve, but you already knew that. As long as we present facts to support our arguments, I don?t see anything wrong with us sharing our opinions. I'd like to point out that almost every organization out there has political interests of some kind. That's why you ignore their analysis and go straight to the facts, and watch many different news sources. Compile the facts, and formulate your own opinion. However, if an organization publishes fallacies supporting one side or the other, it deserves to be ignored. This HRW group has done that, so I suggest they be ignored.[/color] [quote name='Transtic Nerve'] Actually, the post said that it was Russian mercenaries with coalition ideas in mind who did it, not the US. How much of that did you actually read? Regardless, I'm not saying i believe anything, but if you were a news broadcasting corporation, would you broadcast a conspiracy to the death of Nick Berg during a time like this? Yeah right, you'd risk losing everything you ever had. No news corporation is going to report on a conspiracy to this degree. Not now at least. You may hear it several years from now.[/quote] [color=green]The way I interpreted it, the author meant that Nick Berg was executed by Russian mercenaries operating under coalition instruction. As for news organizations not feeling free to broadcast whatever they wish, how do you explain "Radio Free America"? Or Hollywood awards shows where multiple actors criticize the Bush administration? Or the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal? All of these things are put out there, and nothing restricts the freedom of the press. If a newspaper can print allegations that US soldiers raped Iraqi women (complete with pictures from a porn site), then this can certainly be printed, if it's true. The fact is, it isn?t credible. No reputable news agency will publish it for that reason, not because they're afraid of some government crackdown on their expression of free speech.[/color]

[b]Research[/b]: [quote]December 13, 2003 -- The activist group Human Rights Watch has claimed that "hundreds of civilian deaths" in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq "could have been prevented" if only America hadn't used cluster munitions or tried to "decapitate" the Iraqi leadership using intercepts of satellite phone calls. This could be true. After all, war is an inherently messy thing - a kingdom of difficult, often deadly choices. But keep these facts in mind: Overall civilian casualties during the war were amazingly low. (Even Kenneth Roth, director of Human Rights Watch concedes - grudgingly - that "Coalition forces generally tried to avoid killing Iraqis who weren't taking part in combat.") Physical destruction in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities was extremely limited. So fair-minded folk should assess this claim skeptically. Especially given the group's obvious - and sometimes grotesque - anti-American bias in the context of Iraq. After all, before the war HRW predicted a massive "humanitarian disaster" if America tried to topple Saddam Hussein, though it claimed to take no position on the imminent invasion. And during the war it could barely rouse itself to condemn the Iraqi forces' practice of wearing civilian clothes - an open-and-shut, abundantly documented, large-scale violation of one of the core laws of war that put civilians at grave risk. Instead, HRW issued press release after press release condemning or carping at Coalition forces - often based on nothing more than supposition. For instance, in an April 16 press release HRW Director Roth wrote of the U.S. Army "indiscriminately batter[ing] civilian neighborhoods with cluster munitions," even though he had no evidence whatsoever of any kind of "indiscriminate" behavior (his only evidence was a newspaper photograph of a single bomblet in a Baghdad building). Indeed, HRW's researchers didn't even arrive in Iraq until April 29. Nor does it encourage faith in Human Rights Watch's supposed objectivity that one of its key sources for an October report on post-war civilian deaths in Baghdad caused by U.S. forces was Nermin al Mufti, a longtime Ba'athist activist and propagandist for the Saddam regime. Human Rights Watch (or at least its predecessor organizations like Helsinki Watch and Africa Watch) was once a responsible group that tried to be objective despite the left-wing views of its staff and did some good work in dark places that knew little liberty. Now its claims simply can't be trusted.[/quote] [color=green]The "Human Rights Watch" site that you got your "facts" about Iraqi women being afraid to walk the streets is severely biased. I wouldn?t trust a word they say. However, I did find out that I was wrong about Iraqi oil production. Iraq was producing around 3 million barrels of oil a day under Saddam and now is producing between 1.3 and 1.5 million barrels a day, due to sabotage.[/color] [quote name='Adora']And incompetent, culturally ignorant ex-Economist administrators in charge.[/quote] [color=green]Bremer had made, and continues to make, great strides each day in improving the situation in Iraq. If you think he's doing such a poor job, who'd you replace him with?[/color] [quote name='Adora']If overworked troops high on IPU-only-knows-what freaked out because of the dogma they're being fed to keep them there makes it "accidental" by your books, fine. I say, get a damned real police force in there, and there will be less of these *ahem* "Accidents".[/quote] [color=green]You seriously think US Forces shoot innocent civilians? You getting this from Human Rights Watch too, or straight from Al Franken?[/color] [quote name='Adora']So? If you read what I said, they write them off as Apostates. It doesn't matter how many of their own they kill. But by keeping big fat targets hyped-up in the middle of said environment, you're certainly not "protecting" anyone.[/quote] [color=green]So it'd be better for these people if we just left them to the terrorists?[/color] [quote name='Guess?']We did our job, so why the hell are we still there?!? We lose troops everyday because Bush is an idiot and doesn't seem to want an end to the war. He says he does but if he really did want the fighting to end, he would set up a government and leave.[/quote] [color=green]You seriously think the government we've set up so far is capable of surviving on its own, after being in existence for barely a year? Our forces will be needed in that region for a very, very long time. Far longer than any politician would like. Nevertheless, we've got to stick around until Iraq is more than capable of running itself.[/color] [quote name='Guess?']I'm starting to belive this war was started so Bush could feel importent. We should pull out and level the whole country with bombs.[/quote] [color=green]The President of the United States doesn?t declare war just so he can feel important. That's absurd.[/color] [quote name='Falkon']If Bush wants to help us then why doesnt he provide all the jobs he has promised? or education for the unfortunate? or food for the hungry?[/quote] [color=green]Over half a million jobs have been created in the last two months in America, and our economy is right back where it was in the 1990s. Bush's [u]No Child Left Behind Act[/u] is making sure that all children receive quality educations from their public schools, and allowing parents to opt out of poorly performing schools. If you'd like your taxes raised another ten or twenty percent, we can become a socialist nation that punishes the hard-working citizens of our nation by taxing them to death and supports the slackers who don?t want to work. We already have hundreds of charities, thousands of soup kitchens, a plethora of handout organizations and legislation that allows these people to help themselves. As for the "evidence" presented in that last quoted post? It's a silly, untrue, conspiracy theory. If there was any truth to it, it'd be a major news story. I hope nobody here is stupid enough to believe that the US would execute one of it's own citizens for propaganda purposes?[/color]

[quote name='Adora']However, look at it from this perspective. You are thinking with the exact same mentality as the Palestinian boys who have seen 10 friends die by the time they are 10, and want their own revenge on their killers. And we label those people 'terrorists'.[/quote] [color=green]This situation is caused by Arafat and his terrorist pals, who've rejected any peace deals given to them. At one point, Israel was prepared to submit to all of the Palestinians demands and give them ninety-three percent of the land they demanded. When this deal was offered, the PLO refused to accept it. These people somehow think that blowing up innocent Israeli civilians will solve their problems. I have very little sympathy for them, and I think they certainly meet the definition of terrorists. [URL=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorist]Terrorist - One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.[/URL] [URL=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism]Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.[/URL] [/color] [quote name='Adora']Oppressive for some, anyway. As I pointed out, I'd hate to be an Iraqi woman at present. If there was one thing Saddam was good for, it was keeping the religious fundamentalists under the gun.[/quote] [color=green]I'd think that women are much better off in Iraq today, with regard to their rights and freedoms, than they were under Saddam. More women are now involved in government, commerce and other public roles than under Saddam. I do agree with you about Saddam's success with religious fundamentalists. Sometimes it seems like the only way to control the Mullahs is through brute force.[/color] [quote name='Adora']Honey, the gas pipelines, so belovedly protected when the country was first invaded, are barely pumping out a fraction of what the once did. A lot of the country is still without power, and the incompetence of the administrators to deal with a culture still heavily influenced by socialism is laughable.[/quote] [color=green]I'm not sure about gas pipelines, but the oil pipelines in Iraq, after initially being reduced in output during and shortly after the war, are now pumping out more oil than under Saddam. Legally too, I might add. It's true that power is a major issue over there, and should have been dealt with by now, but rebuilding a nation isn?t easy with terrorists sabotaging our efforts. I'm sure that Bremer and his staff are doing their very best to deal with post-socialist Iraqi society. Perhaps you think you could do better?[/color] [quote name='Adora']It's not "policing" when it is the military. That is "Military Occupation". When a foreign police force is actually in the country (such as Australia's force in the Solomons) or it is a UN Police force, THEN it is policing.[/quote] [color=green] [URL=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=policing]Police - A body of persons making up such a department, trained in methods of law enforcement and crime prevention and detection and authorized to maintain the peace, safety, and order of the community. [/URL] The Iraqi Police Force we trained, pay and support fits this definition. Since we support this organization monetarily and back it up militarily, I'd say we're policing their nation.[/color] [quote name='Adora']Filled to bursting with ex-members of the previous "government" and pathetic power politics (Chalabi barely scraped in. Female members have been terrorised and attacked. Nuff said).[/quote] [color=green]This group is merely writing a Constitution and "holding down the fort" until the UN and the US can set up a nationwide election. How are attacks on these people by terrorists relevant?[/color] [quote name='Adora']The longer you stay there, the more support they will gather.[/quote] [color=green]If we overstay our welcome, this could happen. I think that as long as there are terrorists in Iraq, we'll be welcome there as protectors of the Iraqi people.[/color] [quote name='Adora']I still can't figure out whether you're talking about US soldiers or the other side of the battles here. Are US soldiers who shoot up people in cars trying to get back to their home disgracing Christianity? Watch your generalisations here...[/quote] [color=green]Based on what I'd said earlier, I thought it'd be pretty obvious I was talking about terrorists. Sorry for the confusion. As for US soldiers shooting civilians, it's not a common occurrence and is assuredly accidental. Unlike terrorist IEDs that kill mostly innocent Iraqi bystanders.[/color]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']I'm terribly sorry, i didn't realize I was required to have an emotional responce to this. Did you know that a woman, near where I live, murdered her 3 children yesterday? Or that we average over 18,000 murders a year? Yet not all of you seem to be uterly outraged or having emotional responses to those. I fail to see your point.[/quote] [color=green]I'm not asking you to bawl your eyes out, but I'd like to see some compassion. If you cant offer that, how about regret? Or respect for this man, at the very least. The way you've been talking about this man, it's as if you feel he got what he deserved. You fail to see the point of respecting human life? That says a lot about you TN?[/color] [quote name='Transtic Nerve'] I appologize for assuming he was a soldier, not that it makes one bit a difference anyway.[/quote] [color=green]You've just stated that it doesn?t make a difference whether or not you target civilians or military forces during war. Obviously, there[i]is[/i] a difference. This man was an innocent civilian, who was killed brutally by some of the most disgusting people on this earth. His only crime was being American.[/color] [QUOTE=Transtic Nerve] This is not how a normal war is fough, this is how a war on Terrorim is fought. You all wanted this war on terrorism, and well look you all got it and now you're outraged that this happened. Give me an F-ing break. Did you actually think that terrorist weren't going to capture, hold hostage, and execute someone during all this? What did you expect? Us to waltz in their on our big giant horses and trample all who opposed without anything happening? Right, you can take the train back to fantasy world now, cause this is the real world. And int he real world, deranged killers exist. People who think destroying the US will lead them to 75 virgins in heaven exist. People who kill children and women exist. WHy is this any different? Why do all of you get upset all of the sudden. Nothing is different. Nothing is different except for the fact people are just now understanding what war means and people are now just realizing what the consequences of war are, and people are now just realizing how stupid they are.[/QUOTE] [color=green]No. This is not how war is fought. This is how terrorists attempt to scare the free world into letting them further damage a region of the world that has a real chance of forming a society that recognizes the rights of every person for the first time in decades. You've got an incredibly dark world view TN. Lighten up.[/color] [quote name='the_fizz][font=Comic Sans MS][size=3][color=royalblue]I know they want us to know what is going on over there, but we should have never gone over there in the first place (It should have been dealt with the first time we where there!!) Stupid Pres. Bush left it undone![/color][/size'][/font][/quote] [color=green]Monday morning quarterback?[/color] [quote name='the_fizz][font=Comic Sans MS][size=3][color=royalblue]We need to bring our people back! Let them kill each off over there and not US people. [/color][/size'][/font][/quote] [color=green]Yes, let's just bring all of the US Soldiers in Iraq home. Then all of the Iranian radicals, PLO types, Hamas agents and Al Quaeda terrorists can take over the country. They can quash the growing prosperity of that nation and turn it into another Afghanistan. Instead of fighting these people in Iraq, we'll be fighting them on the streets of America. If we leave the terrorists alone, they will come to us. I'd personally like to deal with them in the Middle East.[/color]

[QUOTE=Transtic Nerve]I think it's pretty obvious what to think. They aren't afraid to sacrafice themselves to kill other american soldiers, why would they feel guilty about beheading one? Bush wanted war, he got it. It's how war is done.[/QUOTE] [color=green]First off, the complete lack of emotional response to such a barbaric act astounds me. [i]A twenty-six year old man was slaughtered like a pig in front of the whole world, and his corpse dumped near a bridge.[/i] Secondly, [b]this man was not an American soldier[/b]. He was a civilian contractor who went to Iraq to assist in rebuilding a nation that'd suffered under a brutal dictator for decades. The United States has done nothing but attempt to help the Iraqi people. We toppled their oppressive government, have rebuilt ninety percent of their nation out of our own pocket, are policing their nation free of charge and we're helping them set up a government. The ten percent of the population, along with Iranian agents and PLO/Hamas/Al Quaeda terrorists, are working to upset that. They'll be crushed in time, and do not have the support of the people. This isn't how war is fought. This is terrorism directed at innocent civilians. These men are disgracing themselves, their religion, and every moral standard every civilized society.[/color]

[color=green]I think it's a nationwide phenomenon, this cutting of school budgets. Unfortunately, we've got to cut the budget somewhere. Politicians obviously feel that the education system is the place to do this. Instead, they put their discretionary spending into special interest projects in order to court voters. Obviously, this is wrong. To free up more money for the school system, the United States should do the following: -Cut all spending on Illegal immigrants. Find them, detain them, deport them. -If it comes to it, make sports pay-to-play. It sounds harsh, but if you cant afford to pay for sports, you should probably be spending your money elsewhere anyway. -"Pork" programs should be cut. Also, we should seriously evaluate the teachers that are employed at our schools. Paying them a little more (they barely make enough money to live on as it is) and being a little more exclusive when hiring (when possible) would be good first steps.[/color]