Justice

If I had a friend that ripped off hundreds of people and covered it up to line his own pockets with Cash, I don't think I could EVER call that person a friend again. And as far "my assinine" comments, so far in that thread you seem to be the only one that has expressed that opinion, so drop the "anyone who" Good lord, I'm speaking for people who think. Jesus, haven't your asinine conspiracy theories been debunked ENOUGH? So a few yahoos on a wrestling message board still believe them --- that PROVES something? We discussed this same crap YEARS ago --- and it was laughed at back then, too. That you put ANY stock in this only shows how intellectually deficient the left has become. I have a family friend who's a doctor. Been a terrific guy to my family and me for years. Even helped me get into college. He recently lost his medical license because he was giving out prescriptions to people simply for money. I'm supposed to disavow him as a friend because of that? -=Mike Of course not, there is always reasonable discretion in every situation, however since I think anyone should be able to ingest anything they want to into their bodies, it would make me an automatic sympathizer to your friend, LOL. I also don't believe what he did was nearly on the level of Kenneth Lay. Secondly, you haven't done anything to debunk any theory besides say, "omg that is so stupid, I don't believe it" Maybe he didn't answer because he was a close friend, but now that he's done what he's done Bush himself doesn't like him anymore, which is why he doesn't like talking about it. *GASP* He may actually be SENSITIVE to the subject of a friend possibly betraying his trust.

LOL.....He must not have liked answering spoNtaneous questions about a subject he hasn't been fed answers for. Ken Lay, in the end, is a friend of his and Lay did wrong. I'm sure Bush isn't thrilled that a friend has to be punished. Why should people expect him to be anything but upset that a friend of his is being punished? It's not like you can say he HELPED him at any point, because he did not. -=Mike Well you usually carry characterisitics of those you are in company with. My cousin went to Juve. He was there maybe a year or so, and he's only 17. He failed a grade of H.S. because he skipped too much class, and he's a selfish overconfident ass. Even though I'm related to him and occasionally do stuff with him, I don't think his actions at all reflect mine. Same way: Do you know anyone who has served criminal time? Does that somehow make you a criminal?

That's not really his photogenic side.

Well, in all seriousness, there was millions upon millions of pages of paperwork, paper trails, and other things to go through. Martha Stewart and inside trading is a lot easier to organize a case for since it involves one person, while this is cataloguing the downfall of an entire company over the course of years, trying to figure out who knew who and what. Of course it's going to take tons of time.

Wasn't bleeding out something that came out in Medival times? And hell, we believe in a 200 year old document that is supposed to hold universal truths for all-time. Isn't Freedom of Speech timeless? Just because it is aged doesn't mean that there isn't logic or lessons that can be applied to today (Although I'll admit there are things that certainly aren't applicable today).

Well, the dead people told him how to do it. See? It alls leads back to the dead people. Dear god, what if he is talking to Andrew Jackson?!?! "I see dead people... all the time." "Well duh. You're part of the Kerry Campaign."

Well, he did have a missile program that allowed him to hit Cairo. But hey, I guess that's just like a rock, right? Edit: And where the hell does Blair say "They never had any"? He says that they probably had them, but they were moved, hidden, or possibly even destroyed.

I've always stood by the fact that marijuana is illegal because the government can neither control it or tax it. If they could it would be out there for sale since its about on the same level as alcohol as being bad for you. Cocaine though just destroys people. Also, who's to say he stopped? He's an energetic little fellow so I wouldn't be surprised if he's snorting a few rails here and there still. Eh, I'd say it's next to impossible for him to do it without anyone knowing. Hell, it'd be visible in some way or another if he had a coke addiction. Like you said, it destroys people. And I think his physical activeness comes from having a heart rate of around 45 (I still think that's fucking insane)... "I'd like to tell Saddam something on behalf of the Iraqi people: All your base are belong to us." Bullshit reasoning. I've gotten piss drunk before, and I've been tons of different service groups and such. Just because you have a drinking offense on your record doesn't mean you are a bad person or that you will not become anything in life. Again, it happens to tons of teens regardless of what their parents want. And we don't know Chelsea never drank... she just never got caught. *Shrugs* "I'm a-gonna show you my Kung Fu grip now..."

"All over the place" being one in 1976. You don't dispute the fact he's a coke head though. We're making progress Mike. Stick with me and we'll go places. Going back to the DUIs he was charged once, but I'm willing to wager he was pulled over for it a couple of other times and got off with it. Just as I'm sure Ted Kennedy's gotten away with it too. Just thought I'd make that clear so you don't pull out the biased stuff. He's just as much a coke-head as Clinton and Gore were pot-heads. He did some in the 70's... Big deal. We are getting to an age where soon the President will have grown up playing Nintendo and probably tried drugs a few times at least. Frankly, if he hasn't done it in 30 years, I'd say it has a negligable effect on his life right now. Secondly, your comment on his daughters are moronic: Teens get caught drinking all the time. It happens. Even though he's the leader of the free world, he's still a regular dad and kids will still do stupid stuff. Did you ever drink when you were underage? I've done it a few times, and I've had the good fortune of not getting caught, but I'd hardly say that it was even remotely my father's fault. Eh, there really isn't much to say that Kerry is that much smarter. Far duller, yes, but dullness =/= intelligence. And if you want to bring up gaffs, Kerry is on-route to becoming the Democratic version of George Bush anyways. I don't EVER remember Hillary being VP.

Indeed. That's where I got it from. And most of them put him around 51-53%, barring the NYT/CBS poll, which is a pretty big outlier (Robbie, maybe that's what Mike was referring to when it comes to playing down cons and playing up libs). He's still doing moderately well at the moment. I don't see where you come off as calling him very uncharismatic, though. Seriously, though, Bush might be polarizing, but I don't think he lacks charisma at all. I think that's probably his biggest advantage over Kerry one-on-one.

I'm gonna call bullshit on Tyler and Bush's "Lack" of charisma. He may not come off as the smartest person, yes, I'll agree. But to say that he has no charisma or that he is on-level with Kerry for charisma is just stupid. Bush has a very homey, common-man feel. His poll numbers are down, yes, but he's still virtually tied with Kerry despite tons of things going wrong for him. His charisma and general likeability (I think a while back people were asked if they like Bush personally and it came out as 60-40) is saving him from falling into a deeper pit. Hell, look at his favorability right now: He's still doing moderately well. Meanwhile, CHENEY is closing in on Kerry's numbers.

My dad's from New Brunswick, and he hates Quebec and true French. He might be the exception, though, since he's one of the few New Brunswickers I know outside of Annie E.

Honestly, this is a solid choice. Perhaps not the best choice, but sometimes you just can't make the best choice. Harkin would have been good, but I think someone like Richardson (Who could have helped Kerry a lot in the Southwest) or Graham (Who could have ASSURED Kerry of Florida) would have been wiser. I don't think that Edwards will be as effective as most people are thinking he will be because: 1) He's only served one term in NC, right? I don't think that he really has the huge name recognition outside of those who watched the primaries to really open up the South. 2) He comes off, to me, as Geoffry Fieger with a Southern Accent. His trial lawyer background could come off really badly if the Bush campaign can find a controversial client or such with him. Not only that, but there's the old "Trial Lawyers raise health care costs" argument that is already being used against him. Of course, the charisma alone that he brings to the campaign for Kerry will certainly help him out.

I agree with Jobber. And if Michael Moore could deliver a documentary with that stuff, he would truly deserve an Oscar. Edit: I just realized that he saw The Chronicles of Riddick instead. That whole thing did sound familiar, and he fit it surprisingly well to what Mikey would have done.

It was the campaign finance case decision from the SCOTUS. I remember it because: 1) Jobber actually agreed with Mike that the ruling was not good. He brought up something about O'Reilly being able to diss Kerry as much as he wants within the 60 day period, and outsider groups can't help out in trying to debunk them with counter-ads. 2) Tyler said he read the entire decision the same day it came out. That amazed me.

Point in case, they did offer to hand him over in the late 90's. I forget why we didn't take him, though.

Problem is, though Robbie, you're still just strictly using the popular vote as your only means of determination (Yeah, that sounds weird, but bear with me). It still falls prey to the domination of the population centers since there is no balancing effect for diversifying the vote; it's 'same system, different t-shirt'. If you want a more proportional electoral college, then do it by congressional districts: They are all mandated to be the same size, and it allows for states to split their electors. And even then, I'll point out that Gore won less than 200 Congressional districts. He still wouldn't have won because he only appealed to the big population centers.

So you are basically delegitmatizing 3/4 of all the world's democratic governments. No more coalition governments, no more multiple party systems... that's like all of Europe right out the window. And if that's true... then how could the UN monitor us when barely any of its nations have majoritarian governments?

That's irrelevant, as candidates do not run to win the popular vote. They run to win the electoral college --- which is done to make sure that the machines that have populated big cities would be able to completely screw over national elections by hyper-inflating vote totals in their little fiefdoms. -=Mike Which is why i said the system should be changed. Back when this was a hot topic issue, that was a serious proposal. WHY do we need an electorial college now that every vote can be counted? The system is outdated. ... I think he's saying that cities still have political machines, Zsasz, and that's partly true. But anyways, the strict population model goes makes it so that one only has to appeal to the cities, which disenfrancises both rural and suburban America. The electoral college forces candidates diversify their campaigns and to try and appeal to all Americans rather than just the top urban population centers.

There WASN'T a debacle. That's the point. It was a CLOSE election. There was NO illegalities whatsoever. EVERY ballot was counted. NOBODY was prevented from voting. The system WORKED. -=Mike More people voted for the guy who lost than the guy who won. If the system worked, than the system was flawed. And Gore won less than 200 Congressional districts. Bush's vote was more diverse and spread out more evenly, while Gore's vote was largely concentrated in a few high-population areas. If we used the simple population model, all you'd ever have to do would be to campaign in the top 15 population centers. That's really reaching out to everyone, eh?

20,000 votes would have to change in 3 different states. That's quite a stretch. Eh, not as much as you think. Missouri was a battleground state, so that could have went either way, Illnois could have easily changed had Daly not delivered Chicago like he did, and 11,000 in NJ... well, that's not too much of a stretch. Because it's across three states actually makes it closer because you are increasing the voting population that much more. And overall, I'm in agreement with Zsasz's first statement, but I agree with Mike's general sentiment about this: It's time to give up on the 'unfair election' bit. We are not a nation at war or one that has massively fraudlent elections (Despite what some people want you to believe). Robbie, I think your "Patriot Act" is a little whacked: There's a difference between a nation passing something to monitor terrorist threats within it's own nation and an international body overlooking the election of a free unhindered nation. Plus, there's the danger of possibly having international influence play a role in the choosing of our President: What if Bush wins, but the UN 'claims' that Bush didn't win fairly. Is it out of international spite for Bush, or is it the truth? Either way, before the facts are all sorted out a considerable amount of the population might call foul on the UN for trying to intefere in a sacred American institution when it was really doing it's job, or Bush instantly starts off with an illegitmate light even though he may have won fairly. If you really want a debacle, then we should call in the UN. That could make 2000 look like a cakewalk. And it does disappoint me that some of the Democrats really lack that much faith in their own citizenry that they'd call in the international community to oversee our own elections. Not questioning anyone's patriotism or anything (Waits for Nazi comparisons), but do they really not believe that we can have a fair election anymore? If so, then how can they validate their own existance through these 'false elections' that put them into office?

BECAUSE YOU WILL BITCH AND WHINE ABOUT IT! That's all you've (Liberals as a collective whole) done with Iraq after we gave that reason, and you still do! You have no right to say anything about Sudan because that's a complete 180 on your own personal policy with Iraq. Tell me that liberals fully approve of the invasion of Iraq, and then we can talk about Sudan. Until then, you have nothing to bitch about because we don't have any UN approval yet. We are following your rules right now. And hell, give us time. Who says we aren't setting up to do something there next?

I'm going to agree with Mike here: If you oppose Iraq and the action there, you have no right to say anything about Sudan. Sudan has no history of any sort of military threat against us, nor will it be a military threat in the next 50 years. The UN won't go in. By that criteria, we have no reason to intervine. If you want us to intervine, stop bitching about Iraq, because if Sudan is justified, Iraq is MORE than justified.

Point: Zsasz. And I just saw the movie. Loved it. I agree with what has been said about the ending and switch up the order of events, and with Zsasz's point on Ock dying when they had a great character to continue to use. I liked Ock as a villian so much better than the GG; his powers were just more interesting, his motivation was more believable and he just seemed a more 3-Dimensional character than the GG. Or maybe that was just how good the acting job was. Anyways, they could have had him survive, and the police arrest him, leaving him bitter that even though he was reformed, a hero and saved the city, they still lock him up and call him a monster. To do this, though, you couldn't have PP showing his face to Octavius, either.

Hey, question: Does anyone remember how much Kofi Annan's son stole from the Food-For-Oil program?