I want teh kotor 3

That is one of the greatest things I have ever read.

Buy shares of Apple or Google.

Always knew he was female.

I did a whole lot of nothing. Well yeah, I am an external student, I can be on here as long as I like, and I'm disciplined enough now not to get too distracted by the forums when I'm supposed to be doing uni, and it's a great community, so yeah. Anyway to stay on topic, my laptop crashed a while back, but I saved my work, and lately I've been using my mum's laptop, and I get my new one this afternoon, or so I've been told. Nice. How's the penal colony?

Both saddening and great. I guess it makes sense, though. I'll assume it is a speed of light thing, and, in that case, it's a logical step.

Trust me man, you needed the chloroform this time. Back again? Me too...

Risen, Shadow Comlex, ME, and the original Fable... I might get in some SSBB...

Ever seen a 16-year-old get prevented from seeing an R-rated movies? Movie and game reatings are clear examples of censorship. Hence, Jack thompson is an idiot. That is all. Um, while Wrath of Dagon's post clearly displays a lack of understanding of how the freedom of press index works, as far as examples of what he asked for go, I don't think that counts. It's censorship, sure, but not of the press. Probably not a great example, I admit, but I hate Thompson and have a penchant for referring to him whenever possible.

:lol:

Lol @ shelob references.

I figured out why cosh ix = cos x. I was pleased.

Ever seen a 16-year-old get prevented from seeing an R-rated movies? Movie and game reatings are clear examples of censorship. Hence, Jack thompson is an idiot. That is all.

I'm a diehard Nvidia fanboy, so I can't help you with ATI. As far as Nvidia goes, however, the 2GB 285 is the fastest thing going, and can go in tri-SLI, although I've only seen one rig setup with that- it was ridiculous. Good luck cooling that. For $200, you can get a factory-overclocked 260 216, which will still eat up pretty much anything you throw at it; the more of them, the better. I'm waiting for the 300 series, myself. They're gonna blow everything else out of the water, apparently.

Either way, it's no big deal. Reagan and Bush and pretty much every president has dropped before 50% support during there terms and been re-elected. I'd be extremely surprised if Obama didn't serve 2 terms. Unfortunately, I agree... There's no way Obama won't get re-elected...

Since... forever? No. Without capitalism America would arguably never have become a superpower. Beyond the brief period of economic neo-liberalization in the 20s, the highest tax bracket generally paid over 70%. Good for them. How many rich people voted for them? I'll wager none. lol yeah antisemitism, racism, and slavery are just like taxing the rich. Except the abolition of slavery and creation of a racially equal nation were pushed for by progressives, whereas progressives recognize that extreme class struggle is inevitable without serious measures taken against it (i.e. the creation of a strong social safety net for the "wage slaves"). Do you not understand how society works or something? Do you think that if you don't tax the rich, nothing bad will happen? If by progressives you mean Karl "worst idea in history" Marx, then yeah, progressives are all about class conflict. I've noticed that countries that follow him usually end up collapsing. No, I don't think the rich shouldn't be taxed. I don;t think they should be taxed to a higher percent than the other social groups, just because they're rich.

Why do I owe money to society because I went to college? (Figurative "me", BTW) Right, so then Obama has no affiliation, because he hasn't actually done anything. Since when is capitalism a "monster?" I highly doubt that anybody in their sane mind voted for a president that intended to tax them 70%. I know I sure as hell wouldn't. For that matter, why does something having been done before make it "natural?" By that logic, witch hunts are "natural," as are antisemitism, racism, slavery, etc.

I was refering more to his campaign promises, i.e. to raise the taxes on anyone making over $200k, because they're all evidently evil; I couldn't refer to any actions of his, because he hasn't actually done anything.

No, he isn't. Don't talk about things you clearly don't understand. Really? He's not socialist? So what do you] call his economic policies? Stealing from the rich to give money to the poor with the intent to level the playing field is socialism, plain and simple.

EPIC WIN!!!!!!!!!! Maybe I need to start Nobama 2012 already.

The 380 cometh. Epic win.

No, he was exactly unfriendly to them. AQ's an equal opportunity sort of group, they hate infidels, Shia and the wrong sort of Sunnis, including Saddam's brand of secular Sunnism light- you wouldn't find Christians in AQ's cabinet. There has never been any credible evidence of significant links between AQ and Saddam for the simple reason that Saddam knew that AQ was as dangerous to him as the US, Iran or anyone else. He was, however, pretty friendly with Hamas as they have no real pretensions towards pan-arab worldwide caliphatism and no ability to put that into action even if they did. And if you think all of the various extremist Islamic organizations and leaders wouldn;t join together if it gave them a legitimate chance to take down the US, you're just misguided. I admit that the alliance wouldn;t last long, but I highly doubt that it would not have been made if it could conceivably succeed.

I wouldn't say "justified" but I also wouldn't say "unprovoked." Iraq having WMDs was a an actual lie, Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, and Iraq has never attacked the US. Also, the US's most dangerous enemy in the Middle East was and is Iran. The only power in the region capable of opposing Iran was Iraq, except of course, that after the invasion Iraq is now a hotbed for American hatred, with the Iraqi Shi'ites waiting to take control as soon as possible. So, in all likelihood, a few years, instead of there being one major country controlled by extremist, fundamentalist America hating Shi'ites there will be two countries: Iran and Iraq. Hooray for America. I highly doubt that Saddam never had any relation with Al-Qaeda. Israel, lest we forget, still exists, and, for the moment at least, can still oppose Iran. Iraq was never friendly with the US anyway, so no love lost there. I agree that it was badly managed, and probably in the long run not the brightest idea.

I know I'm going to regret this because engaging you in any serious discussion is the conversational equivalent of an out of body experience, but I betting you would be one of the ones to argue that the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified. I'm curious, do you think Nixon would have been justified in attacking OPEC nations in 1973? Or would Carter have been justified for attacking Iran in 1979? ... or Bush for attacking Iraq in 2003. *Ba-dum Tish* Completely different. Iraq was believed to have WMDs, and was known to be anti-US. Plus, we had just been attacked, and Hussein wasn't exactly unfriendly to al-Quaeda.

No. They aren't used, because the international community collectively opposes them, and goes all "how dare you" whenever they're even mentioned, to say nothing of used. The US purposefully and knowingly provoked Japan into attacking it. ROFLMAO I'm not going to spoil the perfection of this hilarious statement by probing the rationale. What Wals said.