SuperJerk

This thread wasn't that hard to find.

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?showtopic=80454

The original Starship Troopers movie's only virtue is that its satiric jingoistic violence is impossible to stop watching. I don't know if that constitutes the movie "working," but it certainly makes it difficult to ignore.

Even if his brain cells could grow back from nothing, they'd not have the same information stored in them that were stored before they were destroyed, so he'd be an amnesiac. The way Wolverine's powers have always been explained in the past, they're based on rapid cellular regeneration. Some brain cells would have to still exist in order for the regeneration to take place.

It has yet to be proven the majority of the Iraqi people want us to leave right away. We should leave when their government asks us to leave, which has yet to happen.

Considering that Ford lost the election of 1976, and I was trying to say that an appointed VP could win an election, I didn't see the point in letting your false premise go unchallenged.

It worked for Jerry Ford... Ford was already president when he ran in 1976. I'm just speculating on how well an appointed VP would do running for president. There's no valid real-world example of this because the only person to be appointed VP was dropped from the ticket and dead before the next election.

admin or one of the other mods via PM.

There's one other thing that needs to be said about this story that has been completely overlooked. I'd hit it.

Democrats taking control of the Congress in the midterms hurts their chances of taking the White House in 2008. No matter who the Democrats nominate, the Republicans will demonize and run against Nancy Pelosi (not that that's hard to do). It'll be a rerun of the 1996 campaign, where Democrats ran more attack ads against Newt Gingrich than they did against Bob Dole. They even went so far as to refer to the Republican ticket as Dole-Gingrich instead of Dole-Kemp. Either guy will cause a lot of conservatives to stay home or support a third-party candidacy.

See, I told you so.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13521628/site/newsweek/ You left out the part of the article where it says this wasn't the final verison of the plan, and that it hasn't been approved by the national assembly. I'll be curious to know if your opinion changes once gasoline is $10 a gallon and Iraq as turned into a full-blown terrorist state because we didn't give the Iraqi democratic government enough time to stabalize. Like I've said before, if we had it to do all over again, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. However, we did and there's no changing that. We now need to make the best of a bad situation and stay until the country is stable and not an immediate threat to the rest of the world. Yes, having American casualties suck. However, those brave men and women KNEW THE RISK when they volutarily signed up to be in the military. Over 2500 Americans are dead because of the president's faulty WMD intelligence, but I'd hate to think their sacrifice was in vein. A democratic Iraq is a better option than the alternative. President Bush may have completely screwed this entire war up from the beginning, but cutting our losses will just make a bad situation worse.

I <3 Raytown.

I guess not. I seriosuly doubt anything will be uncovered about Cheney that'll force him to resign. Not that I'm saying he's innocent, but the guy's only got 2 1/2 years left. You know what'd happen if Cheeny resigned? Bush would appoint someone else VP. Except this person would probably want to run for president, and would have an automatic name-recognition advantage over everyone else in the field.

America can, must and will blow up the moon. We have the technology. The time is now. Children are our future. And don't mess around...with God's America.

http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc...0,3050516.story Add Chris Dodd to the list.

The graphics folder needs its name changed to either "Inside Joke Hell" or "Czech's Republic".

Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense for 4 years. Of course he had plans to invade Iraq. The suggestion was that he had plans that he planned to use.

Especially since everyone knows the worst part of this board is the top.

I think you're both a little murky on this point. There was a Shi'ite uprising (and a Kurdish uprising) AFTER the defeat of Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. George (H.W.) Bush did encourge Iraqis to "take matters into their own hands", and then, from my understanding, didn't do anything to help out once the rebellion began (he may have even worked actively against it). As a result, you had a whole, whole bunch of dead Shi'ites and Kurds as Saddam ruthlessly put down the rebellion. I'm not murky on anything. Since I was rejecting his entire premise, picking apart his timeline of events was a waste of time. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/art...65&lb=hmpg2 He's right on. If you excluded Kurds, I'm certain the numbers would be even more abysmal. You left out an important part of what I was saying. Does the poll shed any light on my observation? Yes, it does. Your source says: Do the Iraqis favor us immediately leaving? Not according to your source. And here's another question for you: do opinion polls decide policy, or do governments? The last I'd heard, the officially recognized government of Iraq (the people who were actually elected to lead the country) wanted us to stay. When the government of Iraq says its time for us to leave, then we should leave.

You need to quit blaming millions of people for the actions of a few hundred.

Lois actually did figure out he was Superman.

It just seems ridicules for them not to be. Not every 16:9 television has the capacity to blow the picture up awhile cutting off the top and bottom (whatever that process is called).

I can buy the concept of Clark Kent because people always tell me I look like a different person without my glasses on. When I was in high school, a girl asked me to take my glasses off, and her reaction was "Oh my God" (in a good way). Add speech patterns, body language, and hairstyle to that, and you've got a pretty decent disguise. I know that when John Byrne was writing Superman, Superman tried to not allow his face to be photographed and vibrated it at superhuman speed just enough so any picture of him would appear slightly burry. Thus, the only thing people would remember about him was his costume. The only people who have spent any bit of time with both Superman and Clark Kent are Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen (and some continuities, Lex Luthor). They probably think there's a strong resemblance, but are so put off by how differently the two look/act/sound that they dismiss the connection. As far Clark and Superman never being anywhere at the same time, I've never been in the same place at the same time as George Bush, but nobody thinks we're the same person. I know that's not a perfect answer, but its just enough for me personally to suspend disbelief and let myself get sucked into the stories with.