EnderAndrew

I was worried that the movie would gimmick itself out too much for marketing toys, but it was pretty much on par with the first one. My only beef with Shrek 2 was how the soundtrack dominated several scenes. They had such success with Smashmouth's "I'm a Believer" cover in the first movie, that they tried to recreate that magic several times. And while in the first film the song capped off a movie well into denoucement mode, the songs in Shrek 2 were a little jarring in the middle of the movie. But overall, Shrek 2 was still quite funny.

That's preposterous. First off, we had nukes and I've never heard anything to suggest that Germany was anywhere close in the 40's to developing an ICBM. Germany had a lot of the right ideas, but didn't put them together. And even if Germany was going to develop an ICBM late, the US would have had it sooner. If war escalated to that level, Germany would have gone first. You also fail to recall that the firebombing of Dresden was actually worse than the nukes we dropped on Japan. We bombed the hell out of Germany. They tried to take the war to the US, and failed. It's not that they didn't want to, as the U-Boats demonstrate.

Indiana is being mentioned with a lot of free agents, and the rumor is that they are looking to spend. I think they're close to being the team to beat in the East. Indiana gave Detroit more troubles than LA did.

Is that new Constantine movie based on the Watchman comics?

I don't know if that statement is trolling, or just foolishness. Either way, I'm not biting.

Sexism and arrogance are human traits, not male traits. When you call men arrogant and sexist, you are being sexist yourself.

I think you are mistaken about Wedge. If I recall, two X-Wings, and a Y-Wing survived the first Death Star. You can see them all fly away with the Falcon.

I'd love to see it, but I doubt that's the case. I think the hidden indentity card has already been played.

Everyone is expecting the next plot twist to involve the PC like KOTOR:1. That's too obvious. By making the PC an exile, they have someone who wasn't a part of major history. Revan's past was already written, but with the new PC you'll have more control over their story. I think the devs wanted to put that in your hands considering they are exploring apprentice/master relationships. You can grow and learn in the game, and eventually teach.

It just occured to me that a Midget did have a semi-serious lead in Willow, but he was still used for comedy. And Val Kilmer stole his thunder. I would like to sell a story with a serious midget humor just to prove it can be done.

No problem. Everybody is new at some point in time.

KOTOR:3 - Redneck Rampage You know they're working on it.

The sticky threads are helpful to catch you up on what's confirmed.

Those plot speculation theads were fun. I think the galaxy map should list Earth, but not let you travel to it. When you mouse over it, it merely says "Mostly Harmless."

And midgets. Midgets get no love. I'm serious. I think we need a midget hero.

Can I call him Space Lancer?

The casual gamer is not a myth. They don't read gaming mags, or review web sites. They go down to Best Buy and grab what jumps out at them from time to time. They operate largely off word-of-mouth. And hardcore CRPGs cost boatloads of money, and haven't sold well over the past few years. If people bought more CRPGs and supported the industry more, you'd see more. Instead we see a lot of piracy, and people refusing to buy certain games. And you wonder why few CRPGs are in development.

Scoring points does not equate directly to winning. See Vince Carter and Paul Pierce. How will T-Mac affect team chemistry? I think Indiana is just as interesting right now.

Dallas seems very likely. But will they trade with Kobe being a question mark?

I laughed quite a bit, straight on from the Incredibles trailer, all the way through the movie.

Kudos to you. Seriously, I'm not a Bush lackey. I just hate the propogation of lies. And in response to Mkreku's political cartoon, the 9/11 comission didn't say there was no connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda. The 9/11 comission said the Saddam didn't have a direct hand in 9/11 itself. And that's standard for Al Quaeda, where few people know anything that's going on. Saddam did however cooperate on weapons programs with Al Quaeda, and help fund in them in past endeavors. So, if you're going to claim they weren't inked at all, I'd take that is either your uninformed, you refuse to accept facts in front of you, or you're lying.

First off, I don't even know if these quotes are legit since other people can't find them. Let's pretend they are legit. Let's address this first. We have no clue what Kerry's platforms are, because he hasn't presented them. Any assumptions about Kerry are ill-founded. Every politician in every election promises change. How many bring it? And what kind of change? Let's try to apply common sense here. I've heard the argument that Republicans are pro-war, and Democrats don't kill anyone. Clinton's bombs sure killed people. And we he refused to take Osama Bin Laden into custody, he may have failed to prevent 9/11. There's a few thousand deaths right there. Should be blame someone for the 405,399 American casualties in WWII? The President is sure responsible for killing people there. Maybe the United States had a moral obligation to do something about what was happening. The tenets of freedom and peace are often paid for with blood, and that's a sad reality. Putin says Iraq had the means to, and plans to attack the US. Once could easily argue that the war in Iraq saved American lives, but that's purely conjecture. One could also argue that we're saving Iraqi lives. Hrm. One quote here is by Bush, and the other isn't. And if you followed the situation, Bush did do a small reversal here, after the original proposed bill for Homeland security had a major rewrite. He said the changes in the bill were enough to reconsider the plan. One quote says we found biological weapons. The next addresses the concern that everyone wants to see a large stockpile, which we haven't found. There is no contradiction here. In one instance, Bush is supporting trade with Peru. In another, he is protecting American interests. China is doing the same thing right now, placing even more restrictions on incoming American products. And quite frankly, most any government will tell you that they have to protect their interests first. I'd expect Democrats to do the same. Depending on market situations, you make adjustments. That's just good business. I find it rather hard to believe Bush said in a press conference he didn't care about Bin Laden, and if the quote is true, I'd like to see the context it was expressed in. I disagree with some of Bush's policies and morals, but Bush says what he means. He's a pretty straight-shooter, and he has a classic Texan mentality. He's proud and patriotic. This sounds more like a compromise. Bush wanted to increase federal standards and restrictions, and he compromised on the carbon dioxide levels. And carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Lest we forget, Clinton promised to pass the same restrictions for 8 years, and never did. And Clinton promised for 8 years to increase water standards, and never did. Bush pushed both acts through, despite the media calling him anti-environment simply because he's Republican. He's passed more environmental legislation in 4 years than Clinton came close to touching in 8. This is beautiful. Yes, he made a 180. He originally didn't feel it was worth billions of taxpayer dollars to investigate the WMD search, because it is partisan BS in an election year. However, the public suspected conspiracy, and he caved in. He said, go ahead and investigate me. You'll find nothing. And Democrats screamed there were secrets because Rice hadn't testified on public television. She testified to the commission in a private session for 4 hours, but that wasn't good enough. Bush cited national security, but people kept screaming conspiracy, so he everntually allowed her to testify publicly, and allow that testimony to be shown on television. The man was expressed concerns for budget and national security. The Democrats are wasting yax dollars are election hooplah and partisan politics. Bush has merely demonstated he doesn't have anything to hide. Please, keep bringing points like this up. You're making a great case for yourself. Next. Same thing. Moving on. Once again, budget concerns, but Democrats don't care. I watched part of the proceedings, and have been following the Comission via CNN. I loved how Clarke suggested the Bush caused 9/11 by not ordering an assassination on Osama Bin Laden, despite CIA intel showing that taking out Bin Laden wouldn't have helped, and further more, the US doesn't support assassinations anymore. That ended in the late 80's. That was all under Reagan, whom everyone is now singing praises of because he died. This like many of the "contradictions" listed, are two different sources, neither of which are directly accredited quotes. Recently, a friend of mine who is extremely liberal blasted Bush with some supposed statements he made. He uses Reuters and Public Radio for news. NPR said Bush said one thing. Reuters said Bush said something completely different. So we did some searching, and we found that the first Bush statement wasn't made by Bush at all. It was made by Tony Blair, and NPR accreddited it to Bush. The second statement was partially true, but misquoted from the original transcripts I found. If you want to talk about quotes, it's best to use direct accredited quotes from a reputable news agency. And it's standard procedures for the President to schedule exactly how much time he gives in private interviews. Clinton did the same with the Federal Grand Jury. The fact that Bush later agreed (if he did) to give more time to the interview that serves as a personal witch hunt against him merely shows his willingness to cooperate. You are making Bush look like a saint, you do realize this. I'll give you this one. Frankly, I think he's wrong on all counts. The 14th Ammendment of the Constitution would suggest the government shouldn't pass any legislation on the issue. So far you're batting 1 for 10. That's pretty good. First off, I can't find either of these two quotes. But, let's keep operating on the assumption they are real. He says in principle he doesn't support nation building. That's good. Why would anyone have a problem with this? He several years later cites a specific instance where he feels a regime change is necessary. Now if said that he would never touch Iraq, and then turned around and went back on that statement, we'd have an outright lie. What you have here is someone explaining a principle, and an exception to that principle. People do it all the time. In principle, I hate pop music. However, I own a few pop albums like Sarah Mclachlan. That doesn't mean I will turn into a Brittany Spears fan tomorrow. I make exceptions to principles. Read these quotes closely. Al Qaeda and Saddam are both enemies in the war on terror. Saddam didn't have a hand directly in 9/11. Are these two statements exclusive? No. Saddam does give financial support to Al Quaeda, and provides save haven for terrorists. He gives money to the families of suicide bombers. He was also developing WMD with Al Quaeda in Sudan. That doesn't mean he planned 9/11. Al Quaeda is responsible for many attacks on the US, and will carry out many more if allowed to do as such. Perhaps you don't care about that, and feel that it would save lives if we ignored terrorists. Historically that has done rather well, hasn't it? You claim Bush kills people, and that Kerry won't. If Kerry were President when this country was attacked, you better believe he would have gone into Afghanistan, and he would have at least considered going into Iraq. The CIA had intel Iraq was planning an attack. Other nations came forward with intel Iraq was planning an attack. And Iraq failed to comply with UN regulations for 12 years. It was on the table during Clinton's administration, and Kerry would have had to make the call. Maybe he wouldn't have gone into Iraq, but there is a possibility he would have. However, since Kerry wasn't in office at the time, he can criticize the decisions made by Bush. Bush said he wanted everyone to stand up and say where they stood. People did, and the vote wasn't necessary anymore. A coalition of 30 countries took part in the liberation of Iraq. The media wasn't talking about how Canada, or Australia was behind the war effort. The media said it was just England, Spain and the US. That's simply not true. And the media made sure everyone heard about how France would veto any resolution, no matter what. And so would Russia. Where do they get their oil? Iraq. And who do they have strong ties to? Saddam. And they accused us of only worrying about oil prices. Pot. Kettle. Black. I love the headlines you put above these quotes. Are you familiar with the term editorializing? You are putting words in Bush's mouth. Did he say he opposed summits? No. He said in the past they didn't work out. And he said if meetings help, great. You say he opposed the summits, and then supported them. You're creating a lie that wasn't there. Do you know how often bills get radically changed in a matter of two years? Standing behind a bill today, and standing behind a bill of the same name two years later is completely different. If he said he supported cutting income tax, and then suddenly raised it, we'd have a serious discussion on the issue. However, here you have him expressing concerns about a bill, and singing a bill of the same name two years later. That doesn't say anything. In the end, you batted 1-15. Care to try again?

Revan's fate is tied to Bastilla's. They have a strong connection through the Force, and the DS Revan is all about passion. Bastilla's death could be enough to drive him mad, or into exile.

Except I've never expressed an extremist opinion. You however had claimed that the United States is creating puppet governments around the world, started more wars in the 20th century that anyone else (which is false), and is guilty of countless acts of human rights violations. Those are some pretty extreme accusations. Your "proof" is a list of dates where the United States took over countries, that we don't control, and an extreme liberal stomping grounds. I use objective sites like CNN for proof.