Posts made by CommissarYarric

The only problem I can foresee with a female president would be how some foreign nations may view her, and in turn us. After all, there are some nations, whether right or wrong, that do not hold women in very high regard and do treat them as second rate citizens at best, cattle at worst.

Thats the same problem i ahve with Liberman. Besides his banning of video games diatribe, i like his policies, but having a Jewish president would wreak havoc with our relations with the middle east. Its like comfirming the “Jewish Conspiracy” that the palistinain and Iranian leaders always tout. I would still vote for him over any of the potential democratic candidates, though. he is actually sensible.

Ah, I stand corrected. I guess i must have missed that law. I guess its a good thing, too. If Clinton was president at this time, i shudder to think of what our response would have been to 9/11.
Sorry for the lies 8)

I thought you can only serve 8 years too….

There is no law prohibiting it, its just tradition, set by Washington. FDR was elected for four terms, remeber. But Bush is a biggie on tradition, he wont run again. So no fun debate :( .

Bush will win, in my opinion. His campaign was run alot better than Kerry’s, an di think epople tend to trust him more. They know he will do what he thinks is “right”, and wont be swayed by politics. Thats the consensus is according to polls, anyway.

All things considered, it’s safer to walk along the streets of Baghdad then it is in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C. or Detroit.

Just correct this to: its safer to walk along the streets of Bagdad as an American soldier than as an average person in New York, etc. Then its accurate. If your a civilian, then your chances of dying are greater in Bagdad than New York. I generally agree with you, though, that Iraq is alot safer than we think it is. 1000 casuaties is a very small sum when compared to the other wars we have fought. The civilian casualties are pretty large, though, but not anything extrodinary. Less than the avergae amount of civilians killed under Sadaam each year, I believe.

However, I would say it will be more casualties this month, since we are launching offensives around Iraq this month. We may even take Falluja, which could kill a few dozen soldiers. After that, less casualties.

Im gonna go with a tie hear, and I agree with Lizard here (gasp!). Not on the Lying Osama part, which is really a non-issue, like alot of Kerry’s stupid comments (like his 'global test" comment, for example. He didnt mean that we have to get 38/40 on some international test made by France, he just meant that we need to live up to international standards. He wont give veto power to France, althought he will listen to the UN alot more than bush, something I disagree with). I agree with Dzert on the context of the Bush quote, he was saying that at this point, he really isnt important, and our special forces are doing all we can to capture him, so Bush can focus elsewhere. Like Iraq.
Anyway, back to me agreeing with Lizard. This debate, like, well, every debate this election, provided little in the form of actual substance. Most of it was jsut the same rhetoric from both sides, and while it was nicely compiled in one 90 minute span, it wasnt illuminating. It matters on style and soundbites, I guess, so it will have some political influence, but it didnt say anything new about the candidates policies, really.

What? No poll!?? Damn you! :evil: :lol: .

Seriously, I would agree. Cheney won the first part of the debate on foriegn policy, Edwards won the second part of the debate on domestic issues, but not by as much, and that part isnt as important. Cheney also brought up the records of Kerry and Edwards pretty effectively, while Edwards response to that could have been better. So i would say Cheney won this debate on substance.

On style, they were about equal. Cheney was generally dry, edwards started out a bit angry and arrogant, but got better as the debate progressed. So on style, they tied.

Ah well, no huge biggy, Maybe youll force people to make up their minds :D .

I think Kerry kicked butt all the way. What do you think?

I was gonna say it was a draw, but ill say Bush just to cancel you out :P .

You probably want to add draw to the poll, though.

seriously, you are a moron.

i know, but so is kofi annan.

No. Kofi Annon may be a conniving, arrogant, Anti-American jerk (i dont think this, just for example purposes), but he is not an idiot. You cant become the head of the United Nations unless you have some degree of intelligence, and a large amount of wisdom. He may be the worst leader the UN ever had, but his intelligence far outsrips those whom we commonly associate with the word moron, mainly druggies, “meatheads” (or the “dumb jocks” for those unfamiliar with the term), and people who flunk high school. Those people are generally morons. UN officials are not.

I have respect for you, marine, but you need to watch what you say. When you want to insult someone in a position of power, say they are manipulative or dishonest or “scumbags”. Dont call them morons, becuase you will most likely be wrong.

sorry if i was attacking you, i wasnt responding only to you, but to all of the people (AS, TT2, you) who were talking about colleges. maybe I misunderstood, but i got the impression people were saying my interpretation of college was wrong.

Its ok, god knows ive overreacted before. Hell, I used to have anger management problems, fortunately I’m all better now :D .

At least thats what my shrink says :lol: .

no sh*t, i am applying there. i fully understand how it is different from a regular college, i am not only applying there. dont insult me like this

Seriosuly, calm down, Im just jokin around, and I am not insulting you. Im just saying that if you do go their, this arguement is essentially null and viod, so if you get in, it doesnt matter.

also, i love how you basically tell me my friends’ college experiences are basically wrong, because its actually hard, or long, or blah blah blah… they are different from you. different people, situations, backgrounds, and circumstances. dont presume to tell me you know what college will be like for me, because of how it was for you, thats arrogant, self-centered, and narrow-minded. that was YOUR experience, what i describe was the experience of MY friends, mine will probably be similar to one or the other, or maybe it will be completely different. if i go to west point, of course, it will be. jtdc

Um… i never really said that at all. I said what the people at my shcool said about college. I dont think i even mentioned your experiences at all, just giving the testimony form the people i know, so you can look at multiple testimonies when deciding what you think college is like. I never even came close to saying your opinion of what normal college life is like is wrong, since everything after the colon was a quote form someone else, roughly.

first, i never said it was the best, i said allegedly. they say we are like number 12 or something in the state, and pretty high overall in the country. i dont know or care how they determine these rankings, like i said “allegedly”. i do know that my guidance counselors consistently give us material saying how students from our school have an edge over the majority of the country in getting into college, simply because of what high school we are in, and i have friends in other schools who are up to a year behind me material wise, though we are both seniors, and take the highest level courses offered. does this mean anything? who knows? and i dont really care. i attend Ramsey High School, its a public school.

The standard normally used to measure school’s quality is a combination of SAT scores, AP tests. and college acceptances (i dont know what ranking they use for each school, but i think they use the Princeton rankings), as well as other factoirs such as drug use and violence. At least this is the standard used in New Jersey. I know you dont care, but, if anyone else does, there ya go. This generally doesnt have as much to do with the shcool istelf as with the kids going their, but the teachers and administration do help. Dlebarton wouldnt be half the school it is if it was public. Most of the public schools in near me are pretty bad (lots of drugs and poor teachers), according to my friends who go their, so your lucky you have an effective public schools system. Beats paying 20,000 dollars a year :-? .

I attened Delbarton School, a very demanding High School (you have to put in several hours of work a night, at minimum), and from the testimony of all the kids who come back from their college to visit, college, acadmeically, is this: You will have less homework than you did at Delbarton, or the same homework but more time to do it. However, it is simply harder to get good grades. You will, on average, receive about a half a grade lower on each subject. So if you got A’s in high School, you would get B+'s in College. Obviously its not always like this, but thats the average impression.

Janus, your posts about having a freer schedule and more choices make me laugh, however. Didnt you say you were applying to Westpoint? You know, Military School? You certainly wont have that flexible of a schedule if you go their, so i wouldnt expect that radical of a change. Except, you know, the classes that teach you how to kill people effectively.

Also, what highschool do you go to? Delbarton prides itself as the best in New Jersy, and one of the top highschool’s in the country, so im curious as to what your “best highschool” is 8) .

Im gonna say that they will happen, but they wont be nearly as smooth as we would hope. Their will probably be some corrutption, and tales of people being bullied into not voting/voting for someone they dont want to, but ensuring the secuirty of the elections is easiert than securing the security fo the country as a whole, since we know where the attacks will be targeted, and protect them accordingly. Im sue one polling booth will be attacked, but generally the majority of the people who want to vote, will.

i am sorry about my brother’s(marine) boldness, please forgive him. as for evolution, it is a bunch of hogwash, but i can see why people beleive in it so much. it is a topic drilled into little kids from kindergarten, and their vunerable minds absorb it like sponges. so, from this, i understand why some indaviduals continue to believe in evolution.

Actually, we have pretty much proven the concept of evolution to be true, or to actually occur. The most prominant example is that of bateical infections and penecillian immunity. By killing off bacteria with only penecillin, the few bacteria that are immune to it survive and reproduce, creating a strain of bacteria, all of which are immune. When penecillin was first discovered, it worked nearly 100% of the time (on thediseases it was supposed to work on), but now it works around 50% of the time, becuase the bacteria have evolved to be immune.
Thsi is also why AIDS patients require three or more types of medications for treatment to be effective. if only one was used, the mutable nature of the virus would allow an immune breed to form and breed. The additional treatments kill all the virus that were immune to the previous ones, preventing full immunity from developing.
generally, we know that creatures do evolve. In fact, it is impossible for them not to evolve, given the process of evolution. We knwo evolution is true, and that species do evolve to better adapt to thier surroundings.
If any of this is wrong, please correct it (CC), I’m basing this off fuzzy memories of Bio class.

Now, none of this proves that humans evolved this way, form ancient monkey-like species, but I have a question for you, TT2. If evolution did not occur, then where did the bones of homo erectus come from? and why dont they exist today?

Or, how come humans today are, on average, several (i think it is 3) inches taller than the humans of the 10th century?

Just asking :D

Cant you even put the Emperor of Japan’s name? He wasnt some faceless idol, he was a person, who happened to be named Hirohito (no surname was given). Also, i would not put him as the domestic leader of Japan. Tojo would probably have been a better choice.
Anyway, I voted Churchill, since he didnt screw anything up. Everyone else only made things worse.

Whipping out my Dungeons and Dragons Player’s Handbook, the definitive source on attribute definitions :lol: :wink: .
Intelligence: How well someone learns and reasons. I consider high intelligence to the definition of genius.
Wisdom: Common sense, perception, and intuition. Less academic, more “street”, such abilities are not a requirement for being a genius.

An idiot has to have low intelligence, however, that person’s wisdom could be anything. A fool has to have low wisdom, but that person’s intelligence could be anything. Animals are idiots, but often possess a killer instinct and exeptional perception, so thier wisdom would be relatively high (they lack common sense and certain forms of intuiton, though, so not that high).

Michael Moore has a high wisdom. He understands intuitively how to create a product that will attract audiences, and has a knack for making even the most innocent events appear sinister. Often, though, his anaylsis of the information is pathetic, and his conclusions, even with the evidence he provides, are not believable. As such, i would not put his intellignec very higher. Only average.

Moore can succeed, but by that definition, George Bush would be a genius, becuase he is president of the most powerful nation in the world. Thats success in my book, but even i know that Bush is not particularly bright. His intelligence is only slightly above average.

Regardless of whether Atheism is a religion or not (it isnt) it had to be included becuase in a poll of what religion you are, the choice of saying you are nto religious had to exist, or the poll would not be accurate.

My religious beliefs are very mixed. I started out an Anglican, but eventually rejected this religion when i realized it was essentially “catholic light, all the rewards with half the requirements!”, more commonly know as Bullshit. I attend a catholic private highschool, and for some reason began to embrace the stricter forms of Catholic morality, especially when it comes to sexual relations, while slowly distancing myself from Christian theology in general. Currently, I would place my theological position as paralleling Deism from the Englightenment, following the beliefs of Voltaire and the Newtonian World Machine theory, while my moral code demands control on a level similar to that of a devout Catholic.

As such, despite perpendicular theological beliefs, I tend to associate myself with the religious crowd, as i find thier priorities to be more in tune with mine, and we have less conflicting levels of behavioral acceptance. Not that i dont have any atheist friends, but in general they tend to be too…“free”…for my tastes.

Id have to go with the Army, mianly because thye have more history, and as such more weapons and tactics. You cant have an Airforce that uses Swords :wink: .

And how could he have protested that would NOT have been disgraceful? I think making a movie about a President you don’t like is perfectly acceptable for of protest. That being said I went once to the Libery Bell in Philadelphia with a conservative I know, and there were some people there protesting the War in Iraq. Of course he was just so offended, but this points out the hypocricy of the far right which claims to be in favor of free speech….until you actually use it.

By not lying and tricking people into agreeing with him. If his documentary told the truth, then i wouldnt care. Some of his arguements are good, but some are just false, it is is disgraceful to present lies as truths. If you want to debate whether or not he lied, go ahead, but as your statement did not make any such arguement, you are gonna have to try again.
As for your friend and the protest, well, i would be offended as well. I veiw people who do not support the war as unenglightened about the subject, and as such should not protest, for if someone knew the facts they would have to support it, just like i think anyone who is pro-choice is ignorant about biology. I think my opinion is correct and backed up by the majority of the facts, that isnt anything new, and anyone who “sees both sides equally” does not have an opinion. I see the other side and where it is coming from, but i see why it is wrong. However, i dont think we should not let them protest. If your friend tried to make them stop, then he was in the wrong, but if he felt “offended”, i dont see the problem.

Secondly unlike Bush, Moore is from Flint, Michigan and isn’t some East Coast blueblood. You tell me which is more American

last time i checked, being American had ntohing to do with what state you were born in, but what you believe in and what you do for your country.

The RAF pilots were simply better than german pilots, at dunkirk the fought against five to one odds succesfuly, their machiness were on the same level as the german planes, so it has to be the skill of the pilot that won the battle of britian, i dont think that germany ever could have beaten the RAF, during some air raids, the germans lost five times the british in planes, and the loss of pilots was even worse

Well, first, the hurricanes and spitfires were slightly better than the ME series, but not by much. the main reason the British were able to kill so many German planes was becuase they had the “home team advantage” Tehy did not have to waste fuel crossing the English channel, so they coudl stay up in the air alot longer, whenever their planes were shot down the pilots survived, while German pilots would be captured. Radar definately helped, but mroe important was the Enigma machine, whcih allowed the British to read all the German codes and determine where the attack would happen ahead of time (if Germnay ahd changed thier codes like the Japanese, the British intelligence would have been much less effective). Also, the fragmented intelligence of the Germans made the airforce constantly underestimate the RAF’s strength Despite all this, the numerical supiriority of the GErmans allowed them to almost beat the RAF, and they were seriosuly pressed for quite soem time. The london bombings, though, allowed the RAF to rebuild. It could have been very possible for the Luftwaffe to defeat the RAF, and britian with it. Once the RAF was defeated, a landing could have been possible, but it would not be needed. Britian could ahve just been bombed into submission. Many wanted peace, and with the war esentially lost, Churchill could have been shoved aside, or peace made.