NoCalMike

McCain, Obama tilt over al-Qaida in Iraq http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080227/ap_on_...xPrfzBElxph24cA By LIBBY QUAID and TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writers 1 hour, 1 minute ago TYLER, Texas - Republican presidential hopeful John McCain mocked Barack Obama's view of al-Qaida in Iraq, and the Democratic contender responded that GOP policies brought the terrorist group there. The rapid-fire, long-distance exchange Wednesday underscored that the two consider each other likely general election rivals, even though the Democratic contest remains unresolved. McCain criticized Obama for saying in Tuesday night's Democratic debate that, after U.S. troops were withdrawn, as president he would act "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq." "I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It's called `al-Qaida in Iraq,'" McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas, drawing laughter at Obama's expense. He said Obama's statement was "pretty remarkable," Obama quickly answered back while campaigning in Ohio. "I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq and that's why I have said we should continue to strike al-Qaida targets," he told a rally at Ohio State University in Columbus. "But I have some news for John McCain," Obama added. "There was no such thing as al-Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq. ... They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11 and that would be al-Qaida in Afghanistan, that is stronger now than at any time since 2001." Obama said he intended to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq "so we actually start going after al-Qaida in Afghanistan and in the hills of Pakistan like we should have been doing in the first place." While he praised McCain as a war hero and saluted his service to the country, Obama said the Arizona Republican was "tied to the politics of the past. We are about policies of the future." Noting that McCain likes to tell audiences that he'd follow Osama bin Laden to the "gates of hell" to catch him, Obama taunted: "All he (McCain) has done is to follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq." McCain said he had not watched Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate but was told of Obama's response when asked if as president he would reserve the right to send U.S. troops back into Iraq to quell an insurrection or civil war. Obama did not say whether he'd send troops but responded: "As commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad." On Wednesday, Obama expanded slightly that he "would always reserve the right to go in and strike al-Qaida if they were in Iraq" without detailing what kind of strike that might be — air, ground or both. Throughout the primary season, McCain has repeatedly attacked Obama and Clinton for saying they would withdraw troops from Iraq. "And my friends, if we left, they (al-Qaida) wouldn't be establishing a base," McCain said Wednesday. "They'd be taking a country, and I'm not going to allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to al-Qaida." He said that withdrawing troops would be "waving the white flag." In the debate, Clinton did not answer the question about re-invasion of Iraq on grounds it contained "lots of different hypothetical assessments." For years, McCain has urged sending more troops into Iraq, even before President Bush adopted such a strategy about a year ago. "I knew enough from talking to the men and women who are serving that this new strategy was what we needed, and I'm telling you, it is succeeding," McCain said. "So what needs to happen, we need to continue this strategy. It should be General Petraeus' recommendation, not that of a politician running for higher office, as to when and how we withdraw." He was referring to Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq. As he began a swing through President Bush's home state, which holds a presidential primary election on Tuesday, McCain made sure to play up a line he always uses: "I also think it might be nice for President Bush to get a little credit that there's not been another attack on the United States of America," he said to applause. Both Obama and Clinton campaigned in Ohio on Wednesday. Obama was heading later in the day for at least three days of campaigning in Texas. ------------------------------------------------------------- It has begun. *grabs popcorn*

Was the guy a cabaret singer? If so, then the movie you saw was "Calvaire." Yep that's it, thanks.

I do agree, however now that we are down to a single HD-brand of disc, that means their main competitor will be regular DVD, which costs $5-15 less per DVD. If this keeps blu-ray from truely taking off, then I would expect the price of blu-ray discs to start dropping because if in order for blu-ray related products/accessories to sell, people will have to agree that blu-ray discs are affordable in the first place. I was looking at Wal-Mart.com the other day and there was a good amount of Blu-ray discs available for $19 which is a standard price for a lot of regular dvds. I hope the tend continues at a more rapid pace.... Also, as a new(er) owner of a blu-ray player another side effect is that I am not really buying regular DVDs anymore because the bigger I grow my DVD collection the more I will have to potentially have to replace. I don't plan on replacing 90% of my regular DVDs anyway, but movies like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Die Hard, I would be willing to upgrade to Blu-Ray, but not at the current price. The current price of the Die Hard trilogy on Blu-Ray is $109.00 FUCK.

As if this needs to be repeated, but for those interested; http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080227/ts_al...mreligionethics Major survey challenges Western perceptions of Islam by Karin Zeitvogel 1 hour, 43 minutes ago WASHINGTON (AFP) - A huge survey of the world's Muslims released Tuesday challenges Western notions that equate Islam with radicalism and violence. The survey, conducted by the Gallup polling agency over six years and three continents, seeks to dispel the belief held by some in the West that Islam itself is the driving force of radicalism. It shows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims condemned the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 and other subsequent terrorist attacks, the authors of the study said in Washington. "Samuel Harris said in the Washington Times (in 2004): 'It is time we admitted that we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam'," Dalia Mogahed, co-author of the book "Who Speaks for Islam" which grew out of the study, told a news conference here. "The argument Mr Harris makes is that religion in the primary driver" of radicalism and violence, she said. "Religion is an important part of life for the overwhelming majority of Muslims, and if it were indeed the driver for radicalisation, this would be a serious issue." But the study, which Gallup says surveyed a sample equivalent to 90 percent of the world's Muslims, showed that widespread religiosity "does not translate into widespread support for terrorism," said Mogahed, director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. About 93 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates and only seven percent are politically radical, according to the poll, based on more than 50,000 interviews. In majority Muslim countries, overwhelming majorities said religion was a very important part of their lives -- 99 percent in Indonesia, 98 percent in Egypt, 95 percent in Pakistan. But only seven percent of the billion Muslims surveyed -- the radicals -- condoned the attacks on the United States in 2001, the poll showed. Moderate Muslims interviewed for the poll condemned the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington because innocent lives were lost and civilians killed. "Some actually cited religious justifications for why they were against 9/11, going as far as to quote from the Koran -- for example, the verse that says taking one innocent life is like killing all humanity," she said. Meanwhile, radical Muslims gave political, not religious, reasons for condoning the attacks, the poll showed. The survey shows radicals to be neither more religious than their moderate counterparts, nor products of abject poverty or refugee camps. "The radicals are better educated, have better jobs, and are more hopeful with regard to the future than mainstream Muslims," John Esposito, who co-authored "Who Speaks for Islam", said. "Ironically, they believe in democracy even more than many of the mainstream moderates do, but they're more cynical about whether they'll ever get it," said Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University in Washington. Gallup launched the study following 9/11, after which US President George W. Bush asked in a speech, which is quoted in the book: "Why do they hate us?" "They hate... a democratically elected government," Bush offered as a reason. "They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." But the poll, which gives ordinary Muslims a voice in the global debate that they have been drawn into by 9/11, showed that most Muslims -- including radicals -- admire the West for its democracy, freedoms and technological prowess. What they do not want is to have Western ways forced on them, it said. "Muslims want self-determination, but not an American-imposed and -defined democracy. They don't want secularism or theocracy. What the majority wants is democracy with religious values," said Esposito. The poll has given voice to Islam's silent majority, said Mogahed. "A billion Muslims should be the ones that we look to, to understand what they believe, rather than a vocal minority," she told AFP. Muslims in 40 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East were interviewed for the survey, which is part of Gallup's World Poll that aims to interview 95 percent of the world's population.

When I worked for McDonalds in 96/97 I remember during the Monopoly promotion we would kind of look through the french fry packs to see what pieces were winning pieces, and then give them away to friends if they came in. I also was there for a beanie baby promotion. My normal shift was 7-3, but for that promotion they wanted to have me work the opening shift of 5-1pm because the place had a line of cars around the parking lot to get the limited edition beanie babies because back then they were a collectors item. There was a limit to five beanie babies at a time, meaning if you bought the value meal it came with one, and then you could purchase up to 4 more seperately. We would have these ladies just arguing with us about how they should be able to buy as much as they want, and when they finally gave up, they would just go to the drive-thru again and buy another value meal to get more beanie babies. Oh and we also had to give out certain ones on certain days, and the ladies would just erupt with anger because we weren't going to go to the back and find ones they didn't already have. I also worked there back when there was no limit to the 39cent cheeseburger promotion, people would come and order 100 at a time. Some were little league coaches, some were just freezing a bunch for future appetite. It was crazy as hell though..... Working for McDonalds provided me with a hell of a lot of funny memories, and I actually like the job itself. Hell if it paid well I might have considered staying there.

Or because Al Qaeda is who attacked us and not Iraq/Iran and it is more effective to keep blurring the line between reality and bush's fantasy land. I mean really, you just summed up Bush's foreign policy ever since 9/11 which is to claim anything troubling "Al Qaeda" and then claim anyone who isn't aligned with his strategy is "aiding the terrorists"

Both Hillary & Obama kind of dropped the ball yesterday when Tim Russert started blabbering about hypothetical situations concerning Iraq if we withdrawl our troops. I believe Russert said something along the lines of "If we withdrawl the troops and Al Qaeda comes back in and starts to take over again would you reserve the right to re-invade" This question was not only a hypothetical which has no business being asked, but it was another intellectually dishonest question in the first place, because Al Qaeda has never been in "control" of Iraq. It is a false premise. Reports and studies by independent groups have already come to the conclusion that at their PEAK Al Qaeda had/has only been responsible for 5% of the violence in Iraq, and it is actually Iraqi militias themselves that are the biggest threat in Iraq. You know, the guys who want us the hell out of their country. Now common knowledge says that if our military leaves, any type of alliance/agreement they had with Al Qaeda to drive us out would come to an end because we are gone. The Bush administration keeps trying to sell the Iraq conflict as some type of friendly alliance between Al Qaeda and "Other extremists" however the truth is, Iraqis are fighting to get us out of there, while Al Qaeda is just there taking advantage of the situation. Iraqis don't want Al Qaeda there anymore then we do, but right now the U.S. Military is a common target.(Not to mention all the different Iraqi factions that are at civil war with each other which is another scenario that catches our troops in the middle) This is why the simple explanation of "Us vs. Them" that Bush and his cronies have been trying to sell the american people is a bunch of bullshit and shows that a complex makeup in a region such as the middle east cannot be solved by the Bush/McCain strategy.

Nikki Reed wrote/co-wrote the movie, she was in the movie, she played the rebellious friend that taught the goodie-two-shoes the dark ways of the force. Evan Rachel Wood is the one dating Marylin Manson, she played the lead character.

but then according to that model, there's no such thing as bad dialogue, it's all just "different." different historical periods obviously have different standards for what makes good dialogue, but there's still a degree of appropriateness for the material. i think the harmony korine comparison is dead-on: they're both one-trick ponies masquerading as auteur writers, though cody seems more aware of her limitations and i don't think has any pretensions about being a great (or even a really good) writer. and i think 'kids' has probably done more harm to the collective indie consciousness of the 90s than anyone realizes. What about the chick who wrote the script for "thirteen" I mean when that movie came out a few years back it was hailed as the beginning of a great career considering how young she was. Now I dunno what the writer has done since and she might have a good and long writing career, and not to say the movie "thirteen" was bad, but honestly, how hard is it to write a script about a teenage girl that goes from a goodie-two-shoes to a rebelling bitch, but by the closing scene(s) she realizes how stupid she has been? I mean that isn't exactly hard subject material, to write about. Anyone who attended junior high and then transitioned to highschool could probably easily recite a similar script off the top of their head and come up with an equally as effective movie. Now of course I am exaggerating as not everyone would have the talent it takes to take a story and make it into a script/screenplay/movie but i hope you all get the point here.

I saw this one horror flick last year on dvd, not sure if it was french or not but it was definately european. It was about this guy that gets lost trying to take a shortcut through the woods in his car and he stumbles on an older odd couple. The flick got weirder as it went and the ending was downright bizarre, I mean just when you thought there was hope....lol. Anyways I can't for the life of me remember the name of it but it is worth checking out. I could talk more in depth if anyone is interested but I would have to use spoiler tags as I wouldn't want to give away too much of the plot/twist.

To me it's just a shame that once the ECW brand was brought back that Stevie Richards wasn't allowed to back to his ECW gimmick the way Dreamer and Sandman were, I mean Stevie was just as much an ECW original as them and his Dancin Stevie/Big Stevie Cool/Clueless putz gimmick was a riot which also showed off his skills on the mic. It's waaaay to late now as the "ECW" has pretty much been thrown out altogether of ECW.

Helping to get another Republican elected President isn't going to fix any of that. You're right, but neither is whining about Nader. If the Democrats just voted based on what they say in speeches I don't think it would be as big a problem.

http://themthefilm.com/ just click on "trailer" in the lower left hand corner. I have heard some positive buzz on this one. It comes out towards the end of March on DVD, so I doubt it will hit any major theaters I want to see it.

EDIT: Nevermind, I think I missed the sarcasm.....or not, I dunno but yeah Nevermind.

Well the problem is that the Democrats not having a backbone feeds into people thinking they are the same as republicans. Democrats might make great speeches about being against the current administrations policies, but lets see how the MAJORITY of them voted. They helped pass the Patriot Act and renwed, Bush's Tax Cuts, Voted for the war in the first place, keep voting for more funding, Domestic spying. They try and get a bill passed, Bush calls them obstructionists, and then they roll over like pigs in shit. Even since the whooping they put on conservatives in 2006, they are still rolling over afraid of how a vote will hurt their political career. I still can't figure out why the conservative talking heads complain about them so much because they pretty much go along with whatever Bush wants. And they wonder why their approval ratings are so low. About the only thing they have put their money where their mouth is has been torture. Now, I don't agree with and will defend the Democrats on a lot of things, especially the "socialist, communist, terrorist-loving" accusations from the right, but the one thing I can't defend most of the time is the accusation that they don't have a backbone, and I think the past eight years if anything have supported that position.

So Dr. Silverman is now in the same looney-bin he had Conner commited to....haha. The show has taken some interesting turns and next week is the two hour season finale. I hope the show gets renewed if only for the fact that I hate when shows like this that have a unique idea for where the story/plot can go, and then we don't get to see how it turns out....well and the fact that I like the show...

That Megan girl is good-looking but she is a total bitch. She is the type of female that thinks she is owed something by everyone because she perceives herself as being hotter then everyone else. I won't lie, I think she is hot, but not hot enough to make up for that fucked up attitude/personality. With this being her fourth or fifth reality show, another loss and she is probably two steps from porn anyway.

Well the war is over, so let the price drop on blu-ray discs BEGIN.........<crickets>

Hopefully the pay for play is for added features/content and you are not actually paying for the ability to play against a buddy online.

This is all assumption on my part, but I think maybe one of the reasons why movies like Juno or Clerks end up written the way they are is because maybe the writers themselves are relating to themselves at that age rather then the more "normal" crowds. I can personally look back on my years in highschool and remember a lot of kids that were "outsiders" or "geeks" or whatever, but the only reason they were considered "nerdy" is because that is what the high school enviornment breeds. I am sure after highschool they were considered as normal as anyone else because they went out and found plenty of other people like them. In high school if you are not part of the "normal" crowd then it doesn't necessarily mean there is anything wrong with you, you just have different interests that might not be the same as others. Now, while my high school was not full of little Junos or Dante/Randalls running around the halls, I can easily think of people here and there that they remind me of, and maybe the writers of these scripts were those type of people in highschool and that is why they are writing scripts that tell stories from their perspective. People like Juno or Dante & Randall seem funny and like pretty cool people now, but could you imagine two guys debating Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi in highschool they would be called nerds and stuffed in a locker. EDIT: I am not comparing Clerks/Juno as movies, just commenting on how some people always seem to complain about quirky/witty writing in high schooler movies.

With the way cable overcharges for their programming, just imagine how much will get passed onto to the customer once they start offering "Exciting New Fiber Optic Cable"

Ron Paul and Ralph Nader's agreements on opinions begin and end with wanting to get out of the war in Iraq.

I found this quote by McCain rather amusing.... So a message of hope is a naive approach to spread to countries looking to america for......HOPE???

If this show turns out half as good as it looks on paper, it could be one of the better shows in awhile.

The season starts April 2nd... So with the spoilers being revealed I have a question