Justice

Yes! Fuckin' yes! I completely agree. And for all the dissing of the recent Pistons: They probably play better and more consistant D today then they did back then. They just had a lot more offensive weapons. It's that sort of tradeoff. And the Jazz in the 90s would still get beat by the Pistons today. cabbageboy has some wacked out views on the teams of the 90s; that had to be one of the worst decades in all of basketball for the sport. It just ruined the entire "Team Effort" vibe of the 80s that is only returning now.

Damn, no one made the "TBS on CNN/Turner Empire" joke yet.

I disagree COMPLETELY. The last two Batmobiles sucked complete ass. I liked the first and second one, but I just dig both the background and the pseudo-believability behind this one, and it's sheer vesatility. It didn't have all these neat gadgets that would work in some obscure situation, it looked built for utility. That, and I completely dig the rugged, military look. It looks like a lean, mean, justice-dispensing machine. On that note: Which was your LEAST FAVORITE Batman vehicle? After watching the original, the Batwing just looks so dorky. I didn't remember it being that damn small. Hopefully if they include it they make it something like a VTOL-style vehicle.

"Your hate has made you strong..."

Okay, this has to be one of the funniest speeches I've ever fucking read. Just hilarious.

Keep it. If Billups didn't have a real off-day, this game could have gone the other way. McDyess proved to be just as good as Corliss and maybe even more effective with his short range jumper. I think all the parts and pieces were there. Duncan just showed up and Chauncy didn't.

I have to salute the Pistons for never giving up. Thanks for a great year, even if it had its ups and downs.

Well, it shuld be an interesting ending...

Holy shit what a play there.

Damn it, Manu just always looks like he's travelling to me. I just can't understand how he moves like that.

I'm still a bit worried about the Pistons, even though they seem to be playing a bit tighter and more precise than the Spurs. Their utter lack of three-point shooting for the better part of the series frightens me.

Detroit could stand to tighten up a bit, though.

This is gonna be a good game.

Well, it's not an issue whether it's rampant or not. It's an issue of rights. Whether it never happens or it happens twice a day, the Constitution is not written with consideration of 'amount of occurrance' as it is 'Is this a fundamental right or not?"

This'll never make it out of the Senate. As much as I'm against flag-burning, putting an amendment like this is a joke.

Excuse me? You lack the balls to do anythign to help the situation. If I remember correctly, you want us to 1) Completely abandon Israel in a region known for wanting to destroy it. 2) Completely leaving the region to it's own devices, because Lord knows it'll all magically change the House of Saud into a working democracy once we leave. Your solutions are simply a continuation of the status quo. We invaded Iraq because everyone said they had WMDs. We wanted to invade, the UN offered more inspectors. Boy, we all know that it we'd definitely have a real answer with THEM right now. I'll stop 'lying' when you come out of Chomsky-land. Okay, so complete ignorance of circumstance. Obviously all situations that are remotely similar demand the same action every time. Different countries require different action. This isn't hypocracy, this is political reality. Please, try it sometime. The fact that you continue to ignore is that people were already dying. Saddam killed over a million people abroad, and that doesn't count his own people into the number. I don't frankly care whether he did or didn't have any weapons. I wasn't a big guy on the weapons in the first place. Like many people on this board, I supported going in for humanitarian reasons. While I understood the weapons argument, my main beef with Iraq has always been Saddam's slaughter of his own people. No. I think 12 years of reports from multiple independent and credible sources and a complete and utter lack of cooperation in trying to find any real proof of such would be a cause. You'd have a hard time finding one of those in the last 11 years until, oh, about a week or so before we had invaded. And then, well, what are you to make of that? I do research. I'm not the one that completely missed that the US opposed what Saudi Arabia was doing in the article.

Wow, talk about moral relativism here. Oh, what are we ignoring? Oh yeah: The oppression of women, the abject poverty the populations are forced to live in, the absolute power and control by theocratic governments to stop new and modern reforms and, of course, the propagation and acceptance of the islamofacist terrorist culture by the governments. I suppose by asking for all those to end, I'm simply imposing Western culture values on them, right? Sorry, this is moral relativism at it's worst. To try and say that "We can't change this because this is how this culture is and it's wrong to enforce our values" is simply a wishy-washy way of playing to the status quo. Sorry, but the Middle East has to change: It's political structure is destabilizing to the entire world, it's view on human rights is atrocious (Even if you don't like the US's record, there is no comparison here), and it's governments refuse to change any of it. No, your ignorance of what's wrong with the Middle East is. I don't mind the Muslim culture, but there is a more modern and tolerant version of it out there. To try and defend reasons for these governments to abuse and warp it with archaic views does more to destroy the Muslim culture than anythign else. This is logically flawed due to hindsight bias. What makes the war just or not is not the reaction judged against information we have later, but the information available at the time the decision was made. Example: By your 'logic', a cop shooting a man committing a bank robbery is wrong because after the robbery is stopped, he finds out that the gun was a convincing toy. His action is not any less justified than it was before because he could only act on the information at hand. The US acted on information not only from it's own intelligence agencies, but the UN, various international watchdog groups, and other intelligence agencies. There was no dispute that Iraq had them, even with the UN. The only dispute was how to handle the situation. But... whatever. Your bias lies into the fact that you never define what makes an invasion 'logical' or 'illogical', based on your own morals. To you, the prospect of Iraq having weapons did not warrant a war, thusly the war was not warranted. So be it. But your 'logic' reeks of 'bias' just as mine 'does', because it requires you to make an arbitrary decision on the quality of the reasoning. The problem is that you are trying to find definite logic in a political argument. You'll never find it because politics is completely arbitrary and the line of logic will differ from one person to another. Oops, I guess that screws that argument all up. Oookay. This is wrong because your own reasoning hinges on new information not available at the time the decision was made. So this is effectively moot. "CONCORENTLY! VIS A VIS!" This is like watching Will Ferrell playing the architect. You are basically trying to cover up the argument that "Well, we didn't find any WMDs anyways, so the war is unjust and you are wrong" by busting out a thesaurus and trying to baffle the fuck out of anyone reading it.

OMG ROLLEYES LOL YOU REALLY GOT ME THERE WITH THAT ONE God, you've actually managed to become a bigger joke than C-Bacon. Nice. *Thumbs up*

I shall be posting a travesty of a match in about five, but at least it fills a spot. Just wanted to put that out there, comments will come tomorrow.

If they give him a good fifteen minutes at the beginning to finish it up, just those two, it'll be a great intro to the movie as it helps it start off fast and ties up a loose end.

Putting words in his mouth? Dear God, not this again. Look, him asking "What exactly is 'pressure'?" is him trying to downplay the fact that this isn't us behind it and we want to stop the Sauds from starting stuff up. That's pretty much what it is. He is looking for ways to bash the US, which is exactly what he's doing here: He's trying to fault us when we aren't even at fault for anything. Look at the title of the thread: Taking Care of Your Friends, as though we are in cahots and we've been planning this event all along so as to help pay for our blood-oil. Why are you the only one who can't see this? Oh, and just so you know: I'm not the one who goes on the completely offtopic rant here attacking someone for no reason. You are. Please, stop before you look any stupider.

So question... is it day or night when this is going on?

What did that originally say? PM me with it.

First he no-sells a car, now he no-sells the ocean. Silent would be jealous.

Wow, way to twist stuff. We aren't exactly 'friends' with the House of Saud. We tolerate them because, quite literally, we can't just remove them. If they are against us, they make things that much harder for us to do anything in that reason. We are gonna have to change the Muslim world around Saudi Arabia to put pressure on the Sauds to change. Secondly, every report confirms that they were trying to create the weapons. The problem was that they no longer had any. If you ever bothered to actually read things like the Kay report you'd realize that he was still pursuing stuff and that the programs were still fully intact, we just never found any completed projects. So technically, under your reasoning, this information isn't enough to go to war over. Oops. Thirdly, whatever pressure is, it probably wouldn't be enough for you because, well, you don't care how much pressure the US puts on anyways. You just stated that the entire article was basically a way to bash the US. If we were demanding to bomb them if they didn't, you'd still think it wasn't enough because it's not about how much pressure we put on them, it's just about finding another way to attack the US with you. You trying to question what 'pressure' is is just your way of trying to cover up your mistake. And finally: Your solution to this, because, as per usual, you critize without giving any thought into what you would do.