random evil guy

ok, i see you're trying to spin this, just like the republicans usually do. read the articles; everything you need to know are there. every single report and comission have come to the same conclusion; no serious ties between iraq and al qaida can be proven. there were no weapons of mass destruction in iraq in 2003. that's a fact and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. your pathetic attempt at "spinning" this, won't work...

they did? excactely what ties did iraq have with al qaida? and iraq did have wmd, back in 1990. they didn't have them in 2003... http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0616-01.htm and "Similar results were found with respect to Hussein’s alleged support for al Qaeda, a theory that has been most persistently asserted by Vice president **** Cheney, but that was thoroughly debunked by the final report of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission earlier this summer." -iraq al qaida ties- "The survey found that 72 percent of Bush supporters believe either that Iraq had actual WMD (47 percent) or a major program for producing them (25 percent), despite the widespread media coverage in early October of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA’s) “Duelfer Report,” the final word on the subject by the one billion dollar, 15-month investigation by the Iraq Survey Group." -wmd- no weapons of mass destruction have been found and they haven't been able to prove a substantial tie between iraq and al qaida. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...intstory.jsp&1c there you have it..

three of four bush supporters still believe in Iraqi WMD, al Qaeda Ties... http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1022-01.htm hm, a bit disturbing really...

thanks, that sounds pretty good...

will you create a non-spoiler forum for kotor 2 after the release in december? we pc-users would probably like to discuss the game, but most of us would like to avoid spoilers. my suggestion is this: the general kotor forum becomes the non-spoiler forum and the suggestion forum changes name to spoiler forum. how does that sound to you moderators?

ah, yes. the jealousy card. how clever... "

I can answer that. During the American revolution, all the people loyal to Britain were kicked out of their homes, ridiculed, sometimes tarred and feathered, some had their homes burned, and most had their possessions siezed. This kinda led to a resentment of america and what it stood for, and since most of these people settled in Canada after being kicked out of the US, it kinda stuck. And until the collapse of the British Empire, it was our biggest and closest friend and ally, so we took after them rather than the US. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ah, thanks. didn't know that.

i take it you've never been to scandinavia...

oh yeah, it's our current people that did that to the indian nation... good call there. showing some real clever thought on that one... give me a break. do you speak in anything other than rhetoric? taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> the same argument could be applied to europe not supporting the us in iraq. it wasn't the current people that helped europe in it's fight agains the nazis...(this is not directed at you specifially, but to all those who said europe should have supported the iraq war, because of what the us did in ww2)...

no, i fully understood you. you said you thought gays should have a right to wed, when in fact, none of us do. there really aren't tax benefits to being married, btw, and before bush, it was actually a penalty. the tax system is another issue, but in general, you should be able to claim anybody you want as a dependent if they are not working and you are supporting them. that gets rid of the federal need for marriage. by stating that you don't think the gov't officials should make decisions based on religion. you're forcing them to concede to your beliefs. people that have faith in anything use that faith as a guide. human nature. nothing wrong with supporting freedom of speech and press, but you have to remember that this extends to politicians as well even if their speech and/or beliefs are religiously motivated. the separation of church and state, btw, is actually a misnomer. read the constitution and you'll notice it does not explicitly state "separation of church and state." this is a key point and underlies what this clause is actually intended for. the intent is purely a catch-all so the government does not form a national religion. this clause is abused more than any... taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> no, this is what i wrote: "christians want to ban gay marriage; why? because they don't like it. i, however, don't care. i think it's up to the churches to decide if they should allow gay marriage, gay priests and so on. however, i do think gay couples should be able to commit to their partner and recieve the same benefits as married, straight couples. you see the difference?" i said commit! never wed. by this i meant first of all civil unions, but if churches allowed gay marriage, then gay couples could get married. it's up to the churches themselves to decide wheter they want to wed gay couples... "by stating that you don't think the gov't officials should make decisions based on religion. you're forcing them to concede to your beliefs. people that have faith in anything use that faith as a guide. human nature. " -so i'm imposing my beliefs(which are basically none!) on others, by saying i don't accept legislation based on religion? excactely how? if religious people want to follow the bible, then fine. just don't force others to do the same...

no, she's not atris... my guess, is that they just haven't released the names yet.

im betting the palpatine we all see is a clone <{POST_SNAPBACK}> he's not a clone; it has been pretty much confirmed. go read some of the posts over at theforce.net's forums...

NEVER MIND!!!!!!! IT'S AWESOME!!!!!!!!!! :D (w00t) :D (w00t) :D (w00t) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> yes it is <{POST_SNAPBACK}> it's actually kind of stupid... stupid palpatine: lord vader vader:yes, master... stupid palpatine: rise vader:uhm, how? i'm strapped to this table here...

i meant fascists; literally...and it was a joke.

first of all, i figured you were atheist. that doesn't change the fact that your statement is hypocritical, and i've already shown why it is. secondly, it's not just christians that want to ban gay marriage. it's nearly everybody. 80% or more, depending on where you live. christian, islamic, buddhist, atheist, you name it... nearly everybody. if someone chooses religion as the reason they want to ban gay marriage, then that's their prerogative. you're choosing your lack of religion as the reason behind your decision so maybe turnabout is fair play. third, marriage is NOT A RIGHT. it is NOT GUARANTEED IN THE CONSTITUTION. this is a very, very important point. NOBODY has a right to get married according to the constitution. read it and tell me where it is... since it is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, states have domain over such decisions. efforts to put this type of clause into the constitution have fallen flat, evidence that our democratic system works. your biiiig difference has holes in it evil one... personally, i think the fed should get out of marriage entirely. states can do their thing for legal reasons and churches, too. drop all this tax BS involved and let state contracts deal with the legalities... taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> maybe you misunderstood me; i fully agree. fed gov should get out of marriage and i think church should decide for themselves if they want to wed gay couples. however, as you said, "drop all this tax BS involved and let state contracts deal with the legalities...". the problem is, right now there are tax benefits if you're married... and how excactely am i forcing my views on others? maybe my support of freedom of speech and press are a thorn in the side of all those fascists out there... "

Hmm. I'm not sure that I would look toward western Europe as a shining example of "progress", and how the rest of the world should be. If you are enamored enough by your personal lifestyle to think the rest of the planet should emulate it, more power to you, however! This is the kind of statement that frankly irks me a bit. Your presumption of knowing what Americans would and would not "flip" about is erroneous... and arrogant, frankly. Gas taxes are rampant in America... federal taxes, state taxes, local taxes. Here in California 75% of the cost of a gallon of gasoline consists of taxes(Edit: The quoted percentage is a guesstimate, and could vary a few percentage points one way or the other!). There are also environmental taxes of all kinds on all sorts of products and services. Not only have Americans not "flipped", but they have in nearly all cases voted those taxes onto themselves. So as you can see, your knowledge of our country does not appear to be as accurate and extensive as you seem to believe that it is. Let me ask you this: What would you and your countrymen think if, during one of your elections, you opened your local newspaper to see various full-page ads from Americans telling you who we wanted you to elect? Would you be a bit peevish about it? Certainly Americans were when we were treated to that very thing by Norweigans and others who took it upon themselves to tell us who we should elect to govern ourselves. (And I did not vote for Bush, frankly, but that doesn't stop me from feeling mightily annoyed at the nerve of those across the pond who believe they have a right to tell us who to vote for). How would you feel if you saw dozens upon dozens of insulting headlines from around the world after your elections, headlines in which your citizens were called idiots, stupid fools, blind sheep and other such nastiness because the propagators of said newspapers didn't care for the individual you elected? Yet that's what Americans are now seeing. Can you guess how we feel about that? Frankly Americans are getting pretty fed up with European arrogance and insult overall. Just a word to the wise. Pass it on to your leaders. And your newspapers. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> frankly i wouldn't care if americans put in an add. there is freedom of speech here, so i'm used to nutjobs sharing their views with the world(not saying you or americans are nutjobs). nevertheless, i thought that ad was pretty stupid and meaningless. waste of money if you ask me... i'm not sure what gas prices are in the us, but i think they're around 2-3 dollars a gallon? not that much, considering a gallon costs around 6-7 dollars in most european contries.

pretty hypocritical statement there... if you don't tolerate laws based on other people's religion, why should they tolerate laws based on your concept of religion? you're trying to force your beliefs on other people. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> i'm an atheist; that is the lack of religion. i just don't think there's any god and frankly i don't care. an example: christians want to ban gay marriage; why? because they don't like it. i, however, don't care. i think it's up to the churches to decide if they should allow gay marriage, gay priests and so on. however, i do think gay couples should be able to commit to their partner and recieve the same benefits as married, straight couples. you see the difference? i want everyone to have the same rights; most christians want to ban other people from doing things that christians disapprove of. a biiiig difference...

edit: may be something wrong with the file or it may be my stupid computer.... need to do some more testing before i post the link again... edit2: i am told it's working, so here you go dudes and dudettes! http://zachbraff.spscripts.com/thread.php?...99259b8d322ee89

uh, hate to break it to you but just because you think a lack of religion is "progress" or part of "evolving" does not make it so. this line of thinking is actually oppressive in its own right. you're expecting others to be tolerant, nay acceptant, of your views yet can't fathom why they balk at your lack of tolerance of their views. a double standard at best. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> no it's not. i have no problem with people being religious; i can't understand it and i hope they'll realise how moronic it is, but i'll accept the fact that some people chose believe in fairytales( " ). i just don't tolerate laws and regulations based on religion; if i.e. christians want to follow the bible, fine. but they shouldn't be able to force everyone else to do the same...

In other words, they WILL be assimilated! Seriously, what you are implying is that your own culture is better than any other culture, and that superiority is why others should emulate you rather than you emulate them. Never mind the mind-boggling thought that each country should actually keep their own culture, LOL! And there, in a nutshell, is the philosophy that sent hundreds of thousands of your ancestors across the pond to my country, where they became my ancestors. They were searching for religious freedom, the ability to practice their own religion without suffering the prejudice of anti-religious folks like yourself and the persecution of intolerant governments. Which may give a clue to the answer to your next question: First, I won't pretend to respond to the culture and history of Canada. It's not my place to, since I'm neither Canadian nor an expert on Canadians. I can, however, point out that the large percentage of Americans who consider religion a major part of their life has to do with why these people and/or their ancestors came to America in the first place... for religious freedom. Therefore, it stands to reason that a large populace of Americans would be religious. BTW, I'm not a Christian myself, so there are quite a few non-theists running around. Freedom to practice religion also means freedom not to practice religion, which is why I'm quite sensitive to any perceived attempts by the government to enforce the religious beliefs of others onto me via legislative means. We are a massive country. We could stick most countries in Europe into the corner of our large cities, and not notice the increase in population. Therefore, we are as diverse, or more diverse, within ourselves as the whole of Europe, west from east and everything in between. Which is why it's so annoying to have Europeans, or anyone else, generalize Americans. You were quite quick to point out the difference between western and eastern European culture, yet seem to believe that all Americans are homogenious robotrons. I can assure you, we are not. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> it's called progress; europe was once(not that long ago) an opressive society in which kings and emperors ruled ruthlessly. it has changed and i hope other parts of the world will evolve as well. i hope they will by themselves, i'm not saying they should be forced. the us is a diverse country, but in general americans are way more conservative than europeans. look at kerry for instance; in the us, he is considered a liberal. in europe, he would almost be a conservative. i.e. the environment; in europe there are extra taxes on cars that pollute the most and on gas. americans would flip if someone decided to increase taxes on gas...

Yes, I do mean Darfur. And by segregating "western Europe" specifically, you conveniently slice off areas of the world that do not ascribe to your own country's view of governmental purpose. Which basically proves my own point, which is that different areas of the world view their own societies, including their own forms of government, differently than you do based upon the history of those societies. The USA constitution may have been forged 200 years ago, but it still rules our country today, and its purpose has not changed. The words "liberal" and "federal government" are not negative words in the USA, although they have been bastardized by some conservatives who enjoy using the word "liberal" as some kind of obscene insult. It isn't. Federal government has a distinct role to play in American culture, and how much of a role is still the topic of discussion here. At one point, republicans basically believed that government should be small and stick to its basic function of providing for the common defense and enforcing the constitution (although republicans now are expanding government's role to expand there on power base, IMHO). Liberals believed that government should provide womb-to-tomb parenthood for all citizens, thereby removing all incentives beyond that of getting out of bed each day to receive one's governmental subsistance check. Most Americans, however, fall into the moderate range. I guess my question to you would be why you seem to believe that American government, beliefs and society should mirror that of western Europe? Do you have no respect for cultures that are different from your own? I'm genuinely curious. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> well, you can't really compare the western europe to the former yugoslavia, russia and the rest of eastern europa. the western euorpe have been democratic for many years now, while the east was basically ruled by the communists in moscow. nevertheless; with the expansion of the european union, i would think the eastern parts of europe will become similar to the western parts in the years to come. well, to be honest. there are some cultures i don't respect; religious fundamentalism shouldn't be tolerated. it's opressive in its nature. you ask me why i think american values should be similar to those of the western europe. well, first of all the close relationship through nato and the cold war. they are both stable democracies in which personal freedom, freedom of speach and so on are key values. there are so many things that are similar on the surface, but religious and moral values are very different. i have no idea why. in scandinavia, only 39-40 % of the population considers themselves christians and the number is constantly decreasing. in the us, i think some 70 % of the population considers themselves christians. a huge difference! people say education kills religious beliefs, but i don't think europeans are generally better/more educated than americans... but here is a question for you; why is canada so similar to the western europe, while the us is a lot more conservative?

dakur? do you mean darfur? i'm talking about western europe; not croatia, russia or sudan... you're talking about things 200 years ago; it doesn't explain why liberal and federal government are such negative words in the us...

Sounds fantastic! Taxes must be quite high? Which is a fair trade-off for free health care and education provided the quality of such is good - which it must be to be rated so highly by the UN. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> taxes are quite high in all of scandinavia, but everyone basically accepts that. most people think that everyone should have the same opportunities; so therefore taxes are relatively high, so that the federal government can fund health care and education. equal opportuneties no matter who you are or how much money you have... then again, most people make a really good living here, so they don't mind paying their taxes. but that's enough about norway; this thread is about the usa. why is it so many americans don't like the federal government a federal funded health care and so on?

good post; i fully agree and i'm soooo glad i am not an american. when i see what the americans chose and why they chose them; i'm glad i live in a liberal country like norway. we have our problems, but they're small potatoes compared to you guys. i feel sorry for the liberals in the us now; they'll have to struggle with the religous right for four more years. a bit sad, but what are you gonna do when 70 million americans call themselves evangelists(or crazy people as i like to call them)... " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mental note: Move to Norway. The President of the United States has power to: Suspend congress Declare martial law Send congress home and rule in an "emergency" Suspend elections Declare war (...depends on the definition of war...) Basically anything they want. The constitution allows for a lot, including possible tyrrany. Such is life. Unless things become really bad, I will probably be staying here in my purely democratic state. Plus, considering who we have who just won a seat, it looks like it'll be an interesting four years. Hmm. Which middle eastern country do you think we'll declare war on next? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> yeah, norway is a pretty good country. the un has said it's best country in the world to live in two years in a row now... but it's cold; brrrrr. where i live, northern parts of norway, it's cold and snowy from late november and all through march(sometimes april!). (w00t) however; health care and education is free and poverty hardly excists. one big difference from the us, is that the government is far bigger in norway. health care and education is almost entirely funded by the federal government... that is something that fascinates me with the us; their almost natural distrust of the federal government. in europe, most of us, don't see the government as an enemy. we think of the government as a "friend" that can help us if we're in trouble...

"I PM'd Chris Avellone The Developer about Atris's role and he commented that Atris will have a vital role in TSL but will not be one of your companions." -like i thought, atris won't join your party. haha, in your face all you atris loving, sion bashing weirdos! i think sion is a possible party member; he is the opposite of kreia, while atris is the opposite of nihilis...