aramike

I love liberal e-rags because its fairly simple to ascertain their political motivations. quote: However, despite the fact that there is no evidence that Iran is even developing nuclear weapons in the first place, the Bush administration and Congressional leaders of both parties argue that simply having the technology which would make it theoretically possible for Iran to manufacture a nuclear weapon at some point in the future is sufficient casus belli.Read this. Fairly dry read, but any cop in the US would EASILY find "probable cause" in order to conduct a search. Funny how our own laws regarding the search and seizure of Americans aren't enough to justify attempts at halting nuclear proliferation. Bottom line is that we don't want absolute proof of Iran's nuclear weapons program to be a mushroom cloud over Isreal.

Start Here. End Here. Any thoughts?

I beg to differ... While those numbers are slightly older I can hardly believe there's a significant drop-off in a matter of months. quote: Which party is the party of fiscal responsibility again?I would normally answer, neither. But perhaps you should be asked two questions: 1- What's your source? I thought that providing that would be implicit. 2- Hear of Hurricane Katrina?

quote: Meanwhile, I'm still paying $3 per gallon for gas.Still cheaper than bottled water.

quote: Originally posted by Ben Zwycky: Welcom back, mike! I hope this visit is of the long-term variety Indeed. I've missed this community... ...although my brain hurts from behind blood-shot eyes trying to get caught up...

Hey chaps... Long time, no see. Roughly 3 years, actually. Good to see that things are ticking along as usual, actually, and it's good to be home. One little problem, however, is that my old ICQ list is no longer available to me. Therefore, my current ICQ list is unpopulated. If any of my old lads get this, please send me a friend request, or whatever ICQ is calling it these days. Oh, Derek: kick-butt work, man, on early review. Looking forward to catching up. PS: ICQ #61536295

Clinton was a LUCKY president. I still haven't found a single liberal that can show me a left-wing Clinton economic policy which stimulated growth (Clinton DID vote for NAFTA, but NAFTA's a conservative issue). Clinton's economic success was spurned by the prolification of personal computers and the Internet, (neither of which have anything to do with Clinton, well maybe Al Gore... ) But, even then, recession was made INEVITABLE. Why? Consumer spending was awesome, but out-of-control. Clinton's economy was merely a catylist for record consumer debt (which is well-known as a root cause of recession. If you don't understand how that is, just ask me, I'll explain it). Furthermore, the Clinton economy was overstated, meaning, it wasn't as good as people thought it was. Just look at the facts: Nearly 45% of all tech stocks at the time carried artificially inflated values, due to trading firms giving false investment advice in order to boost THEIR personal holdings. Just think about it; if you really wanted to cash in, purchase 1000 shares of a stock priced at $10, encourage clients to purchase said stock thusly raising the value (but not dividends) of said stock, then sell when you near a peak. It's a sort of "insider day-trading". Several major brokerage firms have been sued for BILLIONS over this, and I believe that more lawsuits are still pending or pending settlements. The point being, Clinton's market economy wasn't even as good as was stated. As for jobs, his unemployment rate was HIGHER than Bush's after 4 years. Foreign Policy: Made the US look like a joke after bailing out of Somalia because we took a few casualties. That's the thing about liberals: they have the stomach to talk tough about force, but not deal with the consequences of employing said force. On a positive note, Clinton did make strong allies, notably with the UN, but did nothing to show America's resolve to the world when it comes to the threat of force. As a result, no one believed we would use force when we threatened. John Kerry has many similarities to Clinton, notably his lack of intestinal fortitude when it comes time to back up your rhetoric. Just think about it: Kerry voted for the authorization for the President to use force and then criticizes him for using it. He justifies that criticism by saying he wanted the threat of force to loom over Iraq -- he didn't actually want to USE that force. Think about how HUGE of a foreign policy disaster that would have been. We threatened force, authorized it in the senate, and then backed down. Would anyone EVER take us seriously again? And furthermore, how IRRESPONSIBLE is it to vote for authorization of force KNOWING that you don't intend to use it if you have to, ESPECIALLY given that you should, as a senator, thinking of the DISASTROUS implications such a scenario would have? And FINALLY, if you are running for president, how responsible is it to tell the world your bluffing habits? The reason I bring up Kerry is to draw a parallel between recent events and Clinton. Clinton, by withdrawing from Somalia, told the world that the US would bend to anyone's will so long as you killed a few US troops and assure that it's publicized. Clinton, showed the world the limits of his resolve by responding to Bin Laden by trying (and subsequently failing) to lob cruise missiles at him (you know: cruise missiles are "safe" weapons as no Americans are at risk). 9/11 made the implications of these foreign policy disasters clear. To believe otherwise one would have to either be completely inundated with the historical innacuries of Michael Moore's drivel or believe that historical precendence is not an indicator of future events.

quote: Really? I saw figures on CNN which indicated that more women voted this time around than ever before.Indeed. However, just because they're women doesn't mean they'll automatically trend towards a woman. There's a huge conservative female movement underway (which is reflected most obviously in the balancing of the sides on the abortion issue) who certainly would not vote for Hillary Clinton -- woman or not. It's like the assumption that Al Sharpton would carry the black vote due to him being black. Sharpton couldn't even turn out his constituents in the primaries.

quote: Nice try. I don't see what the Dems had to do with a localized farce in Florida. Besides, IIRC, the Supreme Court decided the election, gave it to Bush and landed us where we are today.No, I meant YOU caused to screw-up down there. Probably had the detractors so pissed off that they couldn't muster the strength to punch through a "chad". Heh, I really missed these rants on here. *Adds item to "to-do" list. Besides, I'll take some comfort in the fact that the detractors have less votes than Nader in Maine. PS: Nice to see you guys again, Steve and Aaron...

OK, so upon trolling around here, I didn't think I'd actually get involved in a discussion... but I must upon hearing more of that "Bush will reinstate the draft" rubbish. Fact: Bush has promised to NOT reinstate the draft. Fact: Kerry claims Bush will indeed reinstate the draft. Fact: Kerry justifies his claim that Bush will reinstate the draft because the military will not be able to fulfill its recruitment demands. Fact: During the debates, Kerry PROMISED to add 40,000 active duty troops to the military. Question: How's Kerry going to add 40,000 troops without a draft if recruitment demands are not being filled? Question: If Kerry's saying Bush will reinstate the draft, but Kerry's promising to add troops that he says are NOT POSSIBLE to get WITHOUT the draft, who's really promising the draft? Bush, or Kerry? Did Kerry flip-flop yet again or does he just not know what he's talking about? PS: Someone tell Derek to vote Bush this time. Last time, as I recall he went Dem and Florida was a big mess as a result. Heh.

Oh smack ... look what I just done gone and ran into ... What'd I been missing here? Oh yeah, and who do I gotta go and relentlessly flame for this one? Lord Above Almighty, I thought Take (a) Deuce [Take 2 for all you up-and-coming newcomers, in case you weren't aware] was bad enough. Bring on Google. Ten bucks says another 16 year old kid with an 8 year old maturity is ready to rock... too bad I'm ready to roll.

quote: "God Emperor/Dune" HerbertIMO, by far the WORST book in the series. Essentially a series of conversations with the worm Leto that come off as nothing more than Herbert's mindless philosophical rantings which make little sense or strong impact on the story itself. ...but he DID do a good job of disguising them as being smart, via leaving them open to any translation put forth so as to lend them some amount of credibility as a sensible musing...

quote: Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: ....your brother huh? ROTFLMAO! You beat me to it.

quote: Originally posted by Commander Elio Jason: that's cool but why do i feel the name Plissken is familiar? i never watched any of those movies. Probably from Metal Gear Solid 2, in the Plant Chapter when Solid Snake "cleverly" calls himself Lt Pliskin. Hey -- they paid homage.

My all time record: 12 hours on NHL 2003. As far as this addiction thing goes, if it wasn't a game it would be something else. Let's just start putting warning labels on cars too: "May get you where you're going quickly, and you may like that, so you may end up using your new car a lot."

Heh, I've been here for quite awhile (extremely actively or just visiting). Heck, I was an admin for 2 years until I had to depart for awhile. And guess what - my very FIRST 2 POSTS on this board were deleted by Derek. Just relax, bro.

Robert Deniro's character in Heat.

quote: Originally posted by Grayfox: how, in the name of all that is holy, did this turn from a thread about a joke into a damn radar discussion??? sheesh Hah. This kinda thing reminds me of the good old days, when no discussion was safe from deviation.

...just to dip in and clarify the radar thing, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong because I'm working from memory here... Most commercial airliners don't carry anything other than a doppler radar. Heck, most commercial airports don't have radar at all. They have what looks and acts like radar, but all it's really displaying is returns from transponders. I think I remember hearing that they don't use actual "targeting" radars due to the fact that they would interfere with public services.

quote: Originally posted by Cruis.In: quote:a man brandishing a gun in the early morning hours late one eveninghmm.. ROTFLMAO! Nice catch...

Wow. I think some of you look way too deeply into movies, which are merely forms of *entertainment*. While, granted, I like a smart and engrossing film as much as the next guy, I can actually enjoy a stupid action movie for what it is ... big screen fun.

quote: Originally posted by Race Bannon IV: I agree totally, And Aramike, I said Below was one of the best suspense fliks last year, not of all time. Big Difference dont you think? My bad ... even so, I thought the movie was terrible. Suspense requires an unpredictable plot, and I thought it was way too predictable. Kinda bored me.

quote: Originally posted by Race Bannon IV: I havent seen this film yet but I read about it in Cinescape magazine when it was in production. I think I will heretofore refer to Dimension as the studio where films go to die. I posted on the Dimension film "Below" as being one the best suspense horror films of last year and it too died at the box office. They make these high quality films and then let them spoil on the vine and we get innundated with marketing for stinkers like "Ghost Ship" and the like. Go figure. Speaking of "Below"... are you serious in calling that one of the best suspense horror fliks of all time?

He's BAAAAAAACK. Great to see you, boss! Can hardly wait to catch you for one of those old time ICQ chats!

Good movie. It was about the first war movie in recent history that actually promoted the neccessity of fighting occassionally. Most war movies are decidedly anti-war.