Justice

Hoooooob-goblins Hoooooob-goblins Whatcha gonna do with those Hoooooob-goblins

But that's pretty much Meirs' whole selling point--that she's an evangelical. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And I could nominate my dog if I wanted to. He can choose whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants. That's his perogative. At moment, she's not in the Trust of the United States, as needed in the Constitution. It's when you confirm her, you can't have an official religious test. By your current logic, the Senate blocking her because she's evangelical would be a violation of the same clause.

Yeah. Faith (In whatever you want) can be a judge of moral character for some. The passage pretty much means you can't make some sort of official test involving religion required for their nomination.

While I agree on the "crooked bastard", the questioning thing is a bit out of place. Being questioned doesn't necessarily mean you were involved in a crime at all, it means you might just have evidence pertinent to the investigation. :-\

I actually disagree with you, sadly. This was mentioned the first time Moore was brought up with the Monument: This is all a big show. It's not truly about 'Christian Roots' or whatever. It's just massive, massive publicity, and good for him in the region he's in. Lost credibility? No, no. He's going to be looked on as a man 'Who stands up for his ideals, and refuses to sacrifice them!' I know, it's dumb as hell, but this entire thing, especially with his unyielding attitude, makes him more of a 'hero' than the idiot he truly is.

Well, thank God for that, I guess. I don't understand why one would oppose something as basic as that. *shrugs*

Hillary did not have to get a judicial order to be let into the house. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Of course not. She simply carpet-bagged it to New York instead of going home.

Nothing really compares to Supes taking a guy and tossing him into a volcano. Now that's justice.

Stuffing words into your mouth? You just said it again. He's not responsible for what happened: That's equating FDR for any war crimes committed by the Allies. By saying he has some responsibility implies that he had a part in this. He didn't. Welcome the realm of 'personal responsibility'. Unless you are somehow suggesting that any of the said parties ordered this, then this part is completely irrelevent. Uh, excuse me? Since when have we had 'casual disregard'? Once again, you are making a statement that's all bark and no bite. If we had 'casual disregard' for 'collateral damage', do you think we'd be in the predicatment we're in? Because we DON'T have that sort of disregard, we are having our trouble. Once again, a useless statement because he didn't have a part or say in any of this. You can't reprimand someone for something they had absolutely no part in. Can you write anything that isn't some overly-emotional rant that lacks a strong grounding in reality? Not if you are involved, no. You'd have to talk your way into it in the first place. It already didn't happen. When it originally came out, it was 24/7 news coverage. Why must we relive it? It doesn't make any sense. Accountability is someone taking responsibility for their actions and correcting them. Releasing more pictures after both of those have been done and over with for a while is no longer accountability. It's beating a dead horse. ... ... ... ... Are you an idiot? More than a few have already been tried, you moron. That's why so many people think this is useless: Because what it relates to is already past. The point is moot. Why release photos that don't help 'credibility' or 'accountability' and will only hurt us in the end. Nor will going on long, overemotional rants that lack factual basis and fail to realize that the point is already long been moot, thusly the current action lacks any sort of usefulness. Uh, because we've already seen pictures, taken responsibility, and started punishing those involved? You act as though this JUST happened. It didn't. Much of the process is over already. I ask again, why relive it when they can't be tried twice for it? What's the point? It's not accountability if someone has already been held accountable. Credibility? Either you think he has it or not; it doesn't hinge on these pictures at all. Actually, after looking at your argument for this, you are, as you completely lack any sort of logic to what you are saying. Perhaps if took a second to consider that this is, oh, happened two years ago, and that most of the process is finished rather than spewing out rhetorical bullshit, you'd realize how useless doing this really is. It doesn't do anything other than help people politically and Islamists recruit people. I pose this question: Where does accountability end and sensationalism begin? Is it fair to keep showing pictures even after the issue is dead and buried? There is no proof that this is a 'policy' of the US military. Even the Gitmo accusations don't compare to any of this stuff. This is an isolated incident, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise.

What are you pissing and moaning about now? The Democrats WILL exploit this for political gain, and the photos will be used as propaganda to drum up support in the Arab world for Islamic terrorists. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Of course they will. As well I say they should. If Bush and company don't want to do it right, if they can't keep their shit together, then they deserve all the grief they get. It's the conservatives war Vyce. Deal with it and own it. You do know it's POLITICS right? Besides my point was that the media spotlight will be shown upon the Dems response and completely overshadow the horseshit that took place in the prison. Nobody really gives a fuck if the Dems do or don't pick this up. It will become THE issue, distract everyone nicely, and go back about its business. THAT is what I am "pissing and moaning" about. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You hit the nail on the head, the media will spin this story as if it is a Democrat vs. Republican issue, when in reality, what it is important is stopping what is going on in these prisons, but that will be overshadowed by all these media outlets as they will have their typical (D) "show the pics"" vs. ® "traitor, sedition" cardboard guests on the show. It will be turned into an argument of whether the pictures should be shown or not, when the real issue is what the pictures reveal about our policy or lackthereof concerning prisoners. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A quick response, but I disagree. I don't think they show much on our 'policy' towards prisoners (Which sort of is turning it into a political issue, as you see Cheesala wanting to accuse Bush because, well, it's obvious he ordered these). Nor do I believe that it is 'necessary' for us to release these pictures. There's a decent argument that by releasing these pictures, we do a lot more harm than anything else, and it's only bringing attention and more drama towards what seems to be more of an isolated event (I don't think anything even close has been even accused of coming out of Gitmo). I do love the reasoning that "These should be used as propaganda against us", despite the fact that this was not actually us, but more a group of fucking sadists in US uniforms. But... I think that we should be as open as possible. There's something to be said for that. While I don't share the enthusiasm of Cheesala for these pictures, and I definitely see it as an uneven tradeoff (We've already been incredibly open about Abu Ghraib, what more do we have to prove), I think it's okay to let these out, though it's really kicking a dead horse at this point.

Yeah, I agree with Tyler here. Using non-public information to keep other investors in the dark while you make a killing isn't exactly a 'fair' practice...

Windu is right behind Yoda when it comes down to things, and he is arguably the greatest saberist around. I don't think it's too hard to believe that he got beaten fair and square. Another point would be that he faced down Windu knowing he'd be beaten in combat, but that he was sure enough that Anakin would be there to save him that he took the risk. Once he told Anakin what he was, he was beyond the point of no return.

Oh God, I can't wait for Stabenow to get thrown out on her ass. And Obama isn't under Presidential Aspirant? I know he's young, but he's like the one guy everyone in the party likes to talk about.

Oh, I did. I advocate some conservative viewpoints, but Mike? Seriously, to think I'd defend Delay is an insult upon my honor. And normally I don't bring this stuff up, but I'm seriously wasted at moment. I personally feel offended by being put into the 'defending Delay' crowd when I have never liked the guy in the first place. It is an insult upon my honor, and it must be addressed immediately. And, well, yes, Henry Winkler rocks in just about every form he takes.

Uh, fuck off. When have I ever defended Delay? Perhaps we should consider your "STARTLING REBUTAL TO THE EVIDENCE AGAINST MUMIA".

What college campus, and what fraternities? I'm a TKE, though I realize that on just about every other campus out there, TKEs tend to be asses. On pros and cons: Pros: - You know everyone in the house, and you have a more direct say in your housing and food. - If it's a good fraternity, you should have at least a majority of good guys in there already, which is nice. There are always guys you don't like, but the majority should be guys you do like. - It's good for a support system, and it's a very good way to become more social. Cons: - Being on a small college campus, I didn't get hazed too much since the College would know about it quite quickly. Other places, though, will make you go through some fucked up shit, admittedly. - Not all people belong in fraternities. It's really not for everyone, or not every fraternity is for everyone. Make sure you don't join just because you want to be cool, but because you actually enjoy and maybe even admire a lot of the guys in the house. Otherwise, there is no real reason for it. That's just a real basic overview, though. For myself, I've found it to be a great experience, but it just depends on you and what type of person you are. A close-knit group of friends can be just as good if not better sometimes.

I'm surprised no one mentioned Rainbow 6. If anything has seriously had WAY too many expansion packs and useless plots, it that. It peaked out at Rogue Spear (Which has a plot better than the original book, in my honest opinion).

Yeah, pretty much. It's sad they can't even really mount a defense against him other than "It's not about what we know, it's about what we don't know. Oh, and don't ask us what we don't know, because we don't even know what we don't know."

Sweet Jesus, I would sit through 3 hours of crap just to see a good 15 minute scene of that. That would make the entire movie for me.

I honestly want to read this, just to see how fucking crazy it is.

Looking again, he looks like he's doing a TO Touchdown celebration or something in those pictures.

Bwuahahahahaha... That's hilarious. The mom keeps looking at him like "He's not my child, he's not my child..."

When I wrote back in the day, the ending was most crucial. The entire match normally built up around it. I'd backwards engineer it, get in important and interesting spots, and to make sure that the psychology is clear and the storyline is good. From there I start from the beginning with a good, flexible plan, and write it out. So, I guess it's a lot like putting together a jigsaw puzzle in that respect.

So you guys didn't use my suggestion of "Celebration" by Kool and the Gang.

The problem is, in inner-city schools, vouchers won't do a damn bit of difference. There is a wall you'll hit when it comes to inner-cities not because of funding or teachers or anything like that, but family relationships and environment. I would argue that I know more about private school systems than most people here, since both my grandmother and my mother have/currently work in the DPS, and knowing an extensive amount of people who went/go to private schools. Private Schools are not all what they are cracked up to be.