Grizzle

quote:Originally posted by street: LOL

Thanks jamotto, I'll do that.

quote:Originally posted by LostInSpace: Well let's take a look at this fact. The first WTC bombing. What happened after? Sure they caught some of the so called perpetrators of this act. What else did the Clinton administration do? Nothing! He had the ball placed in his hand to toughen INS laws and regulation but didn't. The INS system still remained a shambles. He also had the opportunity to bring all agencies together but didn't. Also to beef up Airport security checks and didn't. If only clinton reacted for the first WTC attack the way Bush did for the second attack, 9/11 would have been a hell of a lot harder to pull. The signs were there. Every one knew that these terrorist wanted to take down those towers. But no plan was ever proposed or executed by Clinton to prevent such future attacks. That's more like it. Yes there was more he could have done and that has only been made more obvious by hindsight. As for airport security, there was really no reason at the time to do so. The only reason they do it now is because the 9/11 terrorists used airplanes as a weapon. Let's not forget that Clinton was stifled by the whole 6 year scandal and anything he tried to do was met with cries of wagging the dog. Perhaps if the country was more focused on those acts of terror rather than getting Clinton out of office he could have been more effective in this fight. Now for the current administration, what have they done to get the terrorists who are here now out of our country? (that's what I keep hearing people say anyway, and it's probably true) Jag has mentioned it many times, "They're here!" Well if they're here and we know they're here then we must know who they are so why don't we get them? Maybe it's not so easy, or maybe they aren't here and by making us believe they are, Bush only fortifies his position by keeping people afraid. Where's Osama? What are the chances he's planning another attack before the elections? I'm afraid the Bush administration has pulled a Jedi mind trick on the public. "These are not the terrorists you're looking for... Saddam Hussein is the one you want" Yessss...master...

quote:Originally posted by LostInSpace: quote:Originally posted by Kalshion: Bush's stupidity? Bush wasn't the one who started up a campaign for Saddam back in the 1990 Clinton along with the UN where the one's who made Iraq a bigger threat, NOT Bush That's why the terrorists would love nothing better than have a democrat in office so they can go about with impunity as they did for eight years under clinton. Here we go again. I'm pretty sure I made a post a long time ago outlining exactly what Clinton did about terrorist attacks during his Presidency. In short, nearly all the perpetrators were caught, tried and convicted, except those that were in countries whose governments refused to extradict them. The USS Cole bombing occured so close to the end of his tenure that he wasn't able to enforce much at the time though some effort was made. He just dealt with it in a fashion that focused on the criminals instead of the broad "if you're not with us you're against us" approach of the current administration. Argue his methods all you want, but at least do your homework.

quote:Originally posted by Andergum: ROFL!..that's a good one Andergum street, I wouldn't take it quite that far, though with Rove at the helm nothing would surprise me.

Curiosity got the best of me and I wanted to see how rare proportional spaced typewriters were at the time. Turns out, not so. The IBM Selectric Executive model first introduced in the 1940's supported 4 different widths for characters as did each successive model up through the early 70's. They were known for their near typeset quality of printing and often used as interface keyboards for computers. These were available in retail so it's not impossible to imagine one of those could have been used.

quote:Originally posted by Steve Schacher: quote:The fact remains that while they appear suspicious, the technology to produce such a document was possible at the time, even if it was rare. Do you really believe that "rare" technology would be given to a Lt. Colonel at a lowly Texas Air National Guard base for routine office typing? Don't be mistaken, I have serious doubts myself and lean towards the idea that they are forgeries, but it has not been proven one way or the other. Until then everything is speculation and I'm not one prone to jump to conclusions.

quote:Originally posted by Andergum: This is really sad IMO. CBS and Dan Rather have totally lost all credibility with this. It is so obviously a forgery that I don't believe they had an "expert" look at or verify the documents at all. Then again, Al Gore says he invented the internet, maybe he secretly had MS word running on a computer in 1973. hmmmm I don't understand how so many of you have already come to the conclusion these are forgeries (actually I do and it's called partisanship.) NO one has thus far come out and said that these are indeed forgeries. The fact remains that while they appear suspicious, the technology to produce such a document was possible at the time, even if it was rare. The "expert" they had look at the docs was to analyze the signatures not the typeface. A little skepticism goes a long way, but you guys would make terrible jurors. Something tells me even if the documents are proven true none of you will retract your opinions and will insist they are still forgeries. I'm still waiting for all the facts, it's what level headed people do. As for Al Gore, that's another lie perpetuated by the republicans. "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet" Al Gore 1999 He never used the word "invent" that was the republicans doing and I guess part of their inability to comprehend the spoken word. In the 1980's Al Gore, along with others, fought continually to increase funding for the military's emergency network, Arpanet (because he saw the potential for it's uses in the private sector) that ultimately grew into the Internet that we all use today. Why shouldn't he take some credit for promoting the system? That's what politicians DO. But don't take my word for it, check it out for yourselves.

If Kerry and Bush were to engage in any free-form debate, Bush would loose miserably. As it stands , they are pretty much scripted giving GW the ability do his homework. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of having a debate if you ask me. I want to see how candidates can think on their feet, not regurgitate some canned response to questions they get beforehand.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: The 2nd amendment in this country was NEVER about hunting, or Sports. It was about revolution, it was about keep the government under control. Assault weapons are EXACTLY what the 2nd amendment expected people to be armed with. And unarmed people can be run roughshod over by their government, but an armed people must be respected by it's government, because the people are able and liable to defend their rights from that same government and replace it if it became necassary. People always seem to forget that. I assume everyone knows that it was about revolution and the ability for citizens to defend themselves from an over-zealous government. But as for it being about assault weapons, how many assault weapons were there in 1791?

Read that yesterday too. Just can't understand people that think it's easier and more humane to kill their pets or abandon them on busy highways in hopes they'll get hit than it is to take them to the local animal shelter. Canines 1 Ignorant Human 0

Interesting overlay there Jag, but they don't quite match up exactly. What's odd is the alignment and kerning appears to be off slightly the further to the right that the text goes and then seems to come back in line. Could be distortion from the fax copy, but I'm not sure. They may yet be proven as forgeries, but I don't think it was done specifically in Word. Check out the lower case 'G' in the word (flight) on the second line, it's totally different and DOES look like a mechanical font versus a bitmap or TT. Reserving my judgement for now.

*Gulp* I'm about to agree with Kal and Jag here... mark your calendars. I've nothing against guns at all. Though I don't own one and probably never will, I know that the vast majority of gun owners/enthusiasts are responsible enough to know how to handle them. As for assault weapons specifically, I see less need for them but there are collectors and sportsmen out there that just like them, for whatever reason. And yes, the ban has done little or nothing to prevent the criminals or others that want to get their hands on them from doing so. All I ask is that gun owners keep them locked in a gun safe or take adequate measures to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. Let's not make it any easier for the rabble to get their hands on them.

In their defense, the average Joe/Jill isn't really interested in ASSAULT WEAPONRY. Those that are, already know what's being lifted or know where to find out.

SC usually states when a patch will break your saved games. As of late he has taken to deleting them for you. In your case I can pretty much guarantee your current saves will not be compatible once you apply the patches and the will be deleted when the patch is applied. For future reference your saves are located in the SAVE folder in your UC directory.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: ROFLMAO!! That is too good, that was no witchhunt, then man was a criminal, still is as far as I am concerned. But of course.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: I see, so lying under oath is OK? For Clinton that is? Getting a BJ in the White house Oval office is OK as well? Getting illegal contributions is OK as well, sharing military technology with the only communist power in the world is OK as well? Geez, as long as it's a Democrat it's OK. I never said anything of the sort and I'm not about to go drag out the old argument about the whole Clinton witchhunt.

Well, I checked again and saw no mention of disabling my firewall or opening a port of any kind and I'm not so interested in it that I'd go to that extent anyway. It did say disable pop-up blockers, but I have none. It did download the Futuremark control. It ran, the "analysis meter" hit 100% and even said "Congratulations, your machine has been successfully analyzed". Then I got the page you see. No matter, I was just interested in seeing it since I already know my machine will run anything out there. I'm sure someone will find it useful. Brain surgery it isn't, and thank god for that.

Um... is it September 19th already, or are you a real pirate?

Who thinks up these things? I don't know what I find more disturbing: A) That I can go to the products website and read the minimum specs myself. Someone at Microsoft gets paid a lot of money to come up with this stuff. C) That I actually dragged IE out of the cellar to run this. D) ...And this is what I got

There are also the ones that come encased in the old Atari joystick that contains about 10 games. My sister gave me one for Xmas one year. Can't say I play it much but it sure is nostalgic. Now, if someone could reissue the version of PONG I had as a child (my very first home video game system.) It was from Radio Shack and was about the size of an old style cellphone, grey box with a few slide switches, a large black knob for the paddle and a detachable knob for your opponent. One person had to hold the whole unit to play which connected to power and the tv. Ah those were the days, playing pong on an old 12" BW tv set.

Jag, I'm not arguing your point on a logical level, what you say makes sense. My qualm is with how feasible it would be to attain and the negative effects it would have on an entire population of innocents. The terrorists don't value life, even their own. The threat of annihilation or being cast out by their peers means nothing to them. They will continue because that's what they do, you know, like cockroaches. Despite the potential for a positive outcome, I can't see punishing the entire population of a country for something they really have no control over. If our government and military actually believed this to be a viable option, then we would have attacked Saudi Arabia by now since the 9/11 hijackers were predominantly Saudis. Of course there's the 'oil' issue, but I know how you feel about that. Palestine, I think we all agree, is as corrupt as they come. But it's the government and the terrorists they support that are the problem not the general population. It's the same in other places, and yet some governments don't harbor or support the terrorists operating within their borders. When GW laid out this idea, it was nothing more than bravado and rhetoric. It should be obvious since we haven't followed through on the threat. If we did, and began an all out assault on these countries, the entire world would condemn the US. Now some of you may think we can survive in this world alone (and some of you even wish we would), but the only thing that would come of such circumstance would be the demise of our country, that is, if the rest of the world didn't demolish us outright. P.S. McVeigh was not directly supported by the populace of his home state but neither are the terrorists of the world supported by the general populace of the countries in which they operate.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: BS, you take out those that support the terrorists as well NOT just the terrorists. If a nation is guarding and helping terrorists, then you punish the WHOLE nation. THe Palestinians like to protect terrorists, then you take a few of them out as well. Tell them, STRAIGHT up, if a terrorist comes from your country, YOU will suffer the consequences, NOT just the terrorist. That will put a stop to this nonsense in a hurry. You like terrorists, you protect terrorists, you support terrorists, then you will be treated as a terrorist. EVERYONE will suffer. NOT just the terrorist. NO, it's NOT fair, but life is not fair, and if you support terrorists, then you are a terrorist, and will be treated as such. If that policy were put into effect, there would not be terrorists, because no one would support them, because they would share the terrorists fate. Jag I understand what you are saying and just as you consider my points somewhat idealistic, your points are not viable in the real world either. You simply cannot paint everything with such broad strokes. Rather than deal with the few terrorists who are guilty of such acts you would turn an entire country against us by holding them accountable through the use of military retribution. That won't work. No country can have 100% control over it's citizens and their actions. Yes they should be held accountable but to what extent? Should everyone in Timothy McVeighs home state have been punished for his actions because they failed to stop him? Or should everyone in the US shoulder the responsibility? Should we round up his friends and relations and punish them as well, surely they could have prevented what he did. Fortunately we know better and only punished those in direct relation to his acts of terrorism.

Then perhaps they should ask all of the terrorists to stand and be counted, then slaughter them. It's pretty obvious that the palestinian terrorists are only goaded on by death and military force. How about the IRA? Surely Ireland can teach us something about dealing with terrorism using force. They have probably come closer than anyone to actually wiping it out, but they're still here 34 years later. Damn those terrorists are pesky.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: A little military force goes a long way to knocking those problems on their head, and then after that can be dealt with. Yup, just ask the Israeli's how effective military force has been in beating back the Palestinians. It's only been about 50 years or so.