Boon

What dismissed hoaxes that were submitted by left-wingers are you referring to, Sek? Just curious. If we can all agree that she in fact did not stop at the checkpoint when she was supposed to, and had stopped at previous ones so therefore knew the routine, everything else is irrelevant. It sucks, but that's the world that she entered herself into.

This is rather interesting. Since it's pretty well known that there is slavery in the country, why would the gov't stop a ceremony to grant freedom? I can see the slave owners wanting to cover it up and deny that they're slaves, but not the gov't. Essentially, they denied those 7,000 folks their freedom, reassuring what they really are.

Uh- I think she's the one who screwed up. Putting aside whether or not she believed in the war, her political beliefs, etc. Why would she stop at every other checkpoint and not at this one? Did she forget where she was? Jesus Christ Sek- you want to talk about twisting shit around.

What kind of mob hit leaves someone alive after 300-400 rounds?

Who said teachers are overpaid?

They really should call it Roundtine.

Kentucky is right to worry about zombies. Don't you guys remember Zombies Ate My Neighbors? That was a training simulator for a real-life situation. Good thing I'm stocked up on explosing soda cans and water guns. Save the cheerleaders!

Seconded. I'd love to see what Vince would do if he caught HHH cheating. That'd be friggan hilarious. Maybe the Hurricane could squash him!

Looks like Matt is due for an uber push. They should just cut Lita anyway. Yeah, the women's division sucks, but she's more of a liability then anything else. She was out for months, comes back, and is out for months again. The whole Matt/Kane/Snitsky angle is messed b/c Kane is a face and nobody even cares about Lita. Send Matt back to Smackdown where he was actually doing well and give him a push- hell, the guy deserves it. Being stuck w/ Lita and Jeff for most of his career, you can't help but feel bad for the guy.

Stuff in bold seems relevant.

My problem w/ what you're saying, Rudo, is that you act like America is alone in thinking that we're the "Good Guys." Besides the fact that every country thinks that they're right, America has accepted responsibility for many of its actions, including H&N and Iraq. Yes- I will concede that the war w/ Iraq was justified through scare tactics, but in the end, the Middle East is a better place w/o Saddam in power. I don't really know anybody that refutes that, maybe you will. And many people agree that spreading democracy to the Middle East isn't a bad thing to do, either. Then why didn't America use nukes in Iraq? If America feels justified there, I think you're saying we'd feel justified in using nukes. So... why didn't we? B/c we're not going to be the ones who use them first. We've been through this, already. If they felt justified, why didn't we already use them? It certainly would have caused less American casualties. It's almost like we don't want to use nukes! [GASP!] Once again, we agree that we were convinced that Iraq had WMDs and was going to use them against us... according to your logic, we should've nuked them. Right? Weird, though, when we didn't. ...Maybe you missed it when Iran made an alliance w/ Syria to combat "hostilities," or when the DRNK said they had nukes and weren't afraid to use them.

Yes, because we all know that Bush and Christians hate democracy. Right, b/c Bush was the one that went around to the states and voted to ban gay marriage... And last I checked, Roe v. Wade wasn't overturned like everyone was saying it would be. Finally- Iraq was about oil, about spreading democracy, and about toppling Hussein. It was billed as "promoting freedom" b/c that sounded better, but those were the real reasons. Bush knows how to talk to his supporters- this doesn't mean he agrees w/ everything they want him to do. He doesn't have to appease people like Falwell, Baurer or Robertson b/c they'll never vote otherwise, and he knows it. So feed them some meaningless lines about freedom being a gift from God to keep them quiet and go to Iraq for the reasons above.

Where did anybody doubt that this would instigate other countries into proliferation? I wouldn't call the world in balance post-Cold War. The Cold War ended because the Soviet Union collapsed, and America didn't. I'd call it harmony. The world is set with America as the hegemon. I'd still like to hear from the people who think America would start a nuclear war- Rudo was the last one who really talked about this a few pages back, and it's still shady.

Yeah- I'm sure they share some of the same ideology, but you can say that about everybody. There's always some things in common, but suggesting that these extreme fundamentalists are calling the shots from behind the curtain doesn't fly.

I was talking about America- Straight from the horse's mouth- -Cliff Walker "Positive Atheism" Magazine

Explain to me what decisions Pres. Bush has made that are dictated from the religous right. I'll give you stem cells as a gift, but you give me some other instances where the policies have been reigned by the religious right. And maybe you missed it up in Canada, but the election wasn't dictated by religious fundamentalists. It was dictated by a lot of things, but Christian fundamentalism wasn't one of them. You could argue that the war in Iraq is dictated by religious fundamentalism, but you'd be a damn fool, b/c what you said really is a stretch. Religious fundamentalists that promote war b/c Judgment Day is coming like you say they do are few (if there are even any, I've never heard anybody say "blow up them A-Rabs b/c God is coming to judge us!!"). Even if there are people like that, they don't run this country from behind the scenes in this puppet regime you think has been established. The war was about oil, it was about spreading democracy, and it was about getting Saddam out of power. To say it was about some religious crusade is bullshit nonsense.

Here's a figure for you- approximately 95% of the entire population believe in a higher power of some kind or another. With that, we can conclude that the vast majority of the entire population believe that their higher power, whomever it is, had something to do w/ creating life. Suddenly half of America believing in creation doesn't seem all that terrible.

I'm glad we have a resident expert to tell all the Americans what we're thinking. Since you recognize the dissent in the country- I reiterate:

Alright, so people don't believe in evolution and choose creation, I'll accept that. You can stop w/ the stats. Still, I don't think it's accurate to say that people believe the world was created two thousand years ago, unless people are ignoring the dinosaurs, ancient Greece, etc. Find for me evidence that says half of Americans believe that there were no dinosaurs, no ancient Greece, etc. and then I'll bow down and revel you as Gods. How quickly people forget how divided our country is right now when it's convenient for them. Do me a favor, go check amazon.com and see how well all the books revealing "the truth" are doing. You'll find hundreds of publications that oppose the current gov't. This isn't Nazi Germany, where we do what we're told. I think you're really trying to stretch this "Americans are slaves for their evil gov't" into something it's not.

What about the other 20%? I'd like to see how those numbers were reached, demographics, etc. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Those numbers seem awfully high, though.

I think the point Vyce is emphasizing is that it is presumptuous as well as pompous for people who are not Americans to be telling Americans what our psyche is, regardless of what has been happening over the past 30 years. I don't know anybody that thinks the Earth was created a couple thousand years ago, I really don't see how you can claim that half the country does... What force fed lies are you referring to? I'd love to hear examples. I'd argue that more people distrust the gov't then believe these "force fed lies."

I guess I have to beat a dead horse, here. From a military standpoint, it was the best option to end the war. We've had the opportunity to use nukes, lots of times, all across the Middle East. Did we use them? I'd like to point out that you're contradicting yourself. Not only was it in the best interest of America to go to war w/ Iraq (whether it was for WMDs or oil or w/e you want to say it was for, doing what we did was in our best interest), but we didn't use nukes. According to your logic, America would have nuked Iraq. But did they?

Can you elaborate on this please? Maybe I need to hear more about the "American mentality" from someone who doesn't live in America and seems to know more about it then me, an American who has lived here for my entire life. If you understand MAD, and you believe that the shield wouldn't protect against all weapons, it seems to me like you would see why America won't be the ones to start a war using nukes. It will be somebody like the DRNK, w/ much less to lose and more to prove. History shows that the US typically gets into war for two reaons. 1) America is brought into the war (WWII) or 2) America directly benefits. What benefit comes from blowing the shit out of everybody? If America gets into a nuclear war, it will be to stop somebody else from using them.

OMG BRET HART COMZ BAK 8 YRS L8R TO SCRU SHAWN AT SUMARSLAM OMG!!!!!!!1! OH NOES!!!

Well, that's not who I'd book in there. I'd book Jericho, Benjamin, Benoit, Christian, Edge and Hassan, b/c I saw Hassan at the BU house show w/ Benoit, and he didn't do bad at all.