Justice

Well, mostly. I'm not a 'smog doesn't hurt' guy, I just think that we are being way too quick to point a finger here. We don't have any information on long-term trends. I mean, what if the Ice Caps are cooler than they normally are right now and are going back to equilibrium? I'm not denying that it's not possible for us to be the problem. It very well could be. But I also understand that we are looking at a very small piece of the picture, and we could be seriously misjudging what's wrong here. I just want more than "This five-year study shows that we are hotter than we were before. DOOMSDAY~!" I want something for the long-term and until I see that, science is not on anyone's side to me.

Indeed, Why haeven't you figured this out yet? And how do we know this isn't a naturally occuring thing? Again, I'll point to times like the Middle Ages, which were supposedly much hotter than current times. We could just currently be in a 'heating phase'. First off, scientific proof isn't on your side because, once again most of these are only 5 to 10 year studies. You have no long range studies to prove anything from, which is what is needed to prove a massive climate shift. You act as though we've always had a steady temperature, when science informs us that planets have natural heating and cooling periods. Secondly, trying to make your own sources seem more credible by saying every scientist speaking against it is hired by some sort of interest... so what? I explained this before in another thread: People who have a certain view will be hired out by people with the same view. The scientific community, for the most part, is fairly to the left. These people with differing opinions get pushed out and end up having to sell themselves just to make a living. It's easy for a scientist pushing the same thing the community has said to get published because, well, it's what you want to hear. But the others often get picked up by others. There is no advantage in 'science' here. It's just like the 'EVERYONE AGREES WITH GLOBAL WARMING' study you tried bringing forth last time. It's nothing with substance, just all show. Until you can show me a long-term study showing anything, you don't have any real proof, because that's what showing a real climate change would require. Keep talking about "Well, this five year study shows this!", but as they continue to do those they just show how shortsighted they are.

Exactly. It's like meeting a guy who is sweating and immediately deducing he has heat stroke. Maybe, or maybe he just ran a little. It can go either way, we just need to know more about the situation before jumping to a conclusion.

What can you counter it with? Tom is right: You can pull out tons of junk science that lacks the proper mode and try to prove yourself right, but to defend my point of view requires a study going back around a hundred years or more. You can use quick, very focused studies to show your point of view, but there are no studies for my view because, well, studies that long 'just don't pay off'. Seriously, if there's anything at fault here it's the scientific community trying to jump off to a conclusion almost immediately and rather than trying to prove itself right over a much more expansive timeline they simply continue to repeat the same process and say "I'm right! I'm right! Just look!"

And people say there isn't a marketable personality in this series. Sheed is easily one of the most entertaining personalities in basketball.

Aww, I'm touched. At least mine is an ISP problem and not a fucking overblown ego. Mine can (And pretty much is, now that I've switched) be fixed, but Lord knows that you couldn't be nice to a guy whose just trying to be friendly. Just gotta push that superiority over on someone else. Jesus, he's trying start a damned conversation. You don't need to be a damned elitist and try cutting a n00b down. It's not like it was anything inappropriate, either. So, in conclusion: 1) Calm down. 2) Stop being a prick. Trying to cut someone down just to flex your muscles is shit that gets you a bad reputation. Please, grow up and stop it.

I haven't watched in a while, but I'd say Cena's a good choice, probably with someone like, I dunno, HBK just because I've always marked for him. Oh, and I've translated Johnny's post.

While I do understand and partly agree with Global Warming (Though I think it is continually and vastly overrated right now), Kahran has shown more than a few times that CO2 is a shitty greenhouse gas, despite your own comments. That, and the simple proof that there are no studies that go back more than maybe 10 years here that show it's actually global warming and not a natural temperature shift. Seriously, NoCal, do you have any proof to deny that this could be natural? From what's been said, it was supposedly much hotter during the Middle Ages. There is no definitive proof that global warming is a man-made threat or just a climate shift that occurs naturally because all the studies you love to cite generally don't go over 10 to 20 years. Gosh darn it, I guess science doesn't quite have an answer yet.

But anyways, God damn it the UN drops the proverbial nuclear ball again.

Ejiro's US Title Entrance. It was so obvious, but no one had ever thought to do it before. Both the Mag 7 (HERE WE ARE! BORN TO BE KINGS!) and the Carnies (For Love Rollercoaster). CIA with Secret Agent Man. Leon Sharpe's sales pitch for merchandise. And finally... Fugue's for the demented pleasure of Toccata And Fugue in D Minor. It just fit him so well.

Indeed. There are a lot of guys who can consistently score 20-25 points a night. There are few teams who can consistently keep their opponents under 85.

Well Kotz, bigger and more doesn't necessitate 'better'. Take the Italians for instance, or (possibly) the Israel Likud (If you consider the "Split and coalition" way of gaining power to be a bit dirty), and some South American countries (Which use foldout posters with hundreds of pictures to choose public figures). The problem with our third parties is that they too often only shoot for just the gold, not trying to build up a base first. You need victories in the Senate, the House, and in State Legislatures to really have a chance to win, and none of them have really gotten around to that part of it. It's not societal differences, it's simply political reality and lack of thought on the third party's part.

You know, I can understand how someone not from these towns could say it was boring, but it's bullshit to think that either team doesn't deserve to be here. Both teams have great offense and defense (and if you don't like Detroit's offense, then fuck you because they have one of the best team offenses I've seen in a long time). Bitch about Miami not getting a chance because Wade was injured, but they wouldn't even BE there without the unexciting slug that is Shaq scoring 20 points per game for them with his freight-train approach to basketball. Indeed, individual players can be exciting, but for me, seeing a complete team offense is way more exciting, which is why I like Detroit so much. They score 100 points in a finals game and blow out their opponents, and yet people still say they don't have enough offense to be exciting. What BS.

Bwuahahaha @ the Star Wars theme playing as Darko scores.

This is the thread that wouldn't die, it just goes on and on and on...

So no comments yet for the entire game?

Ooooooookay. Someone has seen F9/11 a few too many times and thinks he knows something. Huh? Because we all know that the BBC is such a neo-con machine. And I dunno if his name is some sort of joke on Alan, but if you can't see that everything he basically said in there was pretty much bullshit, I can finally understand why you have a hard time speaking. Perhaps you missed all of that, but it and his other article warrant, well, a more personal defense because both are stunningly stupid. (Though at least this one didn't include the 'Central Bankers' and 'Jews controlling the world' stuff)

Wow. Such tact. I'm amazed. I was simply referring to the fact that in the only two posts I've seen him post were both amazingly whacked out articles, and it'd be nice to see a defense of either. Or is the insinuation of 'stating your own beliefs than continually relying on others' too much? Perhaps this is a better way to say it.

Man, that Churchill was a sly dog. Going back in time to WWI and attacking the Lusitania so that the US would get involved in WWII! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Indeed. Don't you remember the Alamo and the Spanish-American War?

So... do you have a crazy opinion of your own, or do you just not have enough thought in there to think one up yourself?

Agreed on the Vong. The only 'biomech race' that ever really worked for me was the Tyranids (The Zerg are just cheap ripoffs of them). I always thought that Luke, Han, and Leia should have died off over time. I honestly wish Lucas could have let them go in the later books (At least Han). It would make it that much more interesting to make it so that some of the main characters can die. Indeed, Chewie dies, but it's so long after the original trilogy that people were basically saying "Well, someone has to die sometime." Except for Wedge. Wedge can never die because he rocks way too much.

Indeed. The whole problem is that using 'gulag' suggests 'horrid, toturous hellhole', which Gitmo really isn't. It's not a resort, but this isn't a toture camp like the name would seem to imply. So, when reasoned out to the logical conclusion, yes, we are in agreement. It's the semantics of everything (Oh, and C-Bacon as per usual) that bogged everything down.

Indeed, facts such as: Because boy, that was sure a human rights abuse. Amnesty can be a good organization, but their interpretations can sometimes lead to miscalls, and I'd argue this would be one of them. I'm not saying they're biased, I'm saying they're off the mark. Using quotes as you did was flawed because that doesn't mean Amnesty is any more wrong than it is. Putting up those quotes is just a bitch 'If you don't believe in Amnesty you're obviously a part of this group' style move. All I'm saying is that Amnesty is jumping the gun. Calling this the 'Gulag of our time' with lack of any substantial facts is moronic. I don't care what a PR move is, it's dumb. Reading more into the FBI's claims and what I can find of the ensuing Pentagon inquiry, there were no physical abuse charges, though there we a few instances of interrigators trying new techniques to try and get stuff out of prisoners and they are under investigation themselves now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> So does that mean Amnesty is right every time or something? I don't quite understand. Just because we don't take their word on an accusation that they are making with few corroborating sources and citing what have proven to be false accusations, we are supposed to just roll over because 'Hey, we've used their stuff before, so we have to listen no matter what conflicting evidence we have'. Edit: I'm reading the report right now. God help me, but this is crap. A number of the accuasations have been under investigation or the accused are standing a courtmartial. They even included the 'Fallujah Killing' where the Marine Corporal killed the wounded Iraqi in the Mosque. This is seriously a complete joke.