taks

exactly where did i defend the way everything was done? i'm just commenting on the propaganda and lies that are being spread by moronic statements that the hard left seems so eager to adopt. and statements such as "people over there just don't expect their girls to go to school" is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. one of the principles of freedom is that we're ALL FREE. not just men, women, too. they're there now, and whether you like it or not, that's better. also, first you say my 80% is wrong, then you say "true, 80% now."???? nonsensical. either it's 80% working now and it wasn't before or not??? make up your mind. in all reality, right before the invasion, saddam shut off and sabotaged nearly ALL of their power... that's just how good he was for his people. billions of dollars extorted from them (food for oil anybody?) and we're the bad guys for going in there. problems always exist with these situations, but they only get worse when things are reported out of context and twisted to meet an agenda. do some research, it's not that hard... taks

??? where are you getting your information from? there are outlets here for reliable news mkreku. you've been told children aren't in school? that's a flat out lie... someone's feeding you a line of s**t. yes, there are still hostilities, but much of it is being caused by hardliners from saddam's baathist party members that want him back. there's also a contingent of foreign "terrorists" causing grief. some iraqi's do want us out, only so they can run things themselves... those commiting terrorist acts, however, aren't indicitive of the whole nation... perhaps you should do some research at places OTHER than liberal media sources... it's there, just not on the front page of the times... taks

ahh yes, the independent nation state of california. i wish the urban legend about CA falling into the ocean were true... but alas, only part of it will separate. maybe that's good enough. taks

fox news is owned by rupert murdoch, and EXTREME conservative... taks

excuse me? i beg to differ... maybe if you lived here you'd understand that the abu ghraib prison has been on the front page of the NY Times 43 out of 47 days, yet not one mention of the new Iraqi PM thanking the US for liberating them. we get NOTHING but news about how poorly things in iraq are going. no mentions of the fact that now children in iraq can ALL go to school, even girls (why nobody cared that girls couldn't go to school before saddam was removed is beyond me). 80% of the country now has electrical power, which is much more than before... they now are able to speak freely, conduct business and live their lives without the fear of saddam's repression. NONE of that is reported in our press... maybe you need a refresher course on what's really happening over here... if there's any censorship going on, it's the good that is coming out of this whole affair... nobody seems to care how much better off the iraqi people are and moronic statements such as this only make matters worse. taks

clinton was very much impeached. he was acquitted, however. nixon was not impeached though he was informed that if he did not resign, he would be impeached and convicted. impeachment is the normal crime equivalent of an indictment. taks

this is also not true. most companies won't provide a bad reference out of fear of a lawsuit, but there is no law saying you can't provide a bad reference. basically, it just isn't worth the money of a slander lawsuit vs. "no comment" or "no, we would not rehire this person." the latter is cheaper, even if they don't slander... taks

i have a friend that's big into half-life modding... uses the team fortress combat expansion... big group, actually. that reminds me, i need to contact that beeatch. he still hasn't met my son... taks

yup... here's a list if you want: kubrick taks

think anything 2001: a space odyssey and you'll hit the mark... taks

uh, that's what overrated is... i.e. the press loved it, gave it rave reviews and everyone that plays it thinks it's substandard or has some very negative comments to add to the fray. taks

i never saw the latter posts till just now (bacon, etc.)... i count myself as someone "overly suspicious and informed" when it comes to anything i hear. while i believe in plenty of non-conformist ideas (ZPF, alternates to BB theories, etc.), rule #1 in an objectivist's MO is "verify your information." taks

hehe, uh, hehe... they're arachnids. taks

yes, the 'uninstaller'... excellent MW character, IMO. just when it seems like the tedium of the game is getting to you WHAM! 2GB of extra HD space and a ton of extra free time. taks

i was worried about you AND wiggy... at least you appended your statement with phew... taks

Not to mention some of the camera's crosshairs appeared behind the astronauts like they were a static part of the scenery, the footage taken was studio quality, when the guy who designed the camera said that it was near impossible to get a good shot because of the way it was mounted on the chest of the space suits, the lighting had shadows cast in multiple directions as if in a studio, if it was really on the moon, there should have been shadows from one direction only as the only source of light was the sun, and MAYBE whatever lights the astronauts brought with them....many, many flaws in that video. Do I think they actually landed...probably, but they leave themselves open to attack faking a video. you're joking, right? i hope so as you seem too intelligent to believe this crap... if not, here goes... first of all, NONE of the moon landers are visible from earth. we don't have telescopes powerful enough. if you'd like a discourse on minimum resolution based on aperture size i can provide one. and no, hubble can't take a picture of the moon, either. the moon is too close, too bright and moving too quickly for hubble to take any decent pictures. remember, hubble was designed to take pictures of galaxies that are light years across... second of all, your friend with a masters in physics maybe should consider a different career. the problem with the "slo-mo" replay theory of the footage is the manner in which the dust falls to earth. see, in earth, due to atmosphere and gravity, dust only flies a VERY short distance before dissipating into a cloud. ALL of the dust rooster tails can very clearly be seen to extend much farther than the high gravity of earth will allow. further, no "dust clouds" are evident in any of the footage and the effect of said rooster tails is most evident upon landing back on the moon. as for the crosshairs, sheesh... you're obviously not an expert on photography because if you were, you'd realize that "white out" occurs when a background image is MUCH brighter than the foreground, i.e. the light reflected from the bright white suits (no atmosphere on the moon to dissipate reflected light) bleeds into surrounding areas of the film... wait a minute, i'm not an expert and even i knew that. oh yeah, btw, the guy that designed the cameras also went on to say that it would take a lot of practice to do what they did with the chest mounted cameras. guess what? this is something they had as they spent MONTHS practicing in the suits. every maneuver and every walk was planned, as well as painstaking practice in pools of water taking pictures... this piece gets even more ridiculous when the "perfect" pictures are taken into context of all the crap pictures that also came out. the dozen or so perfect ones are only the very best of the THOUSANDS they took... go figure. finally, the astronauts themselves were also light sources (bright white reflects) not to mention that the shadow theory also relies on perfectly flat terrain. the latter is a feature seemingly overlooked by conspiracy theorists. taks

no, i think people in general are just too willing to expound on a story credulously, without researching the facts for themselves. in fact, i think that the wilder the story, the more likely it is believed (sometimes). people seem to forget that as easy as it is to spread dis/mis-information, however, it is just as easy to discount it. taks

no, not special at all. just aware enough about internet legends to realize that a little research is all that it takes to stop the spread of such ridiculous mis-information. try it, you'll see... taks

i'm sorry, but every bit of what you just said is a bunch of bunk. do some research before propagating myths and legends... took me less than 1 minute to prove this as nothing other than urban legend. oh, and entire camels? at 5" leg span? sheesh... http://www.frgnews.com/spider.htm http://www.snopes.com/photos/bugs/camelspider.asp taks

oh wow... i hadn't realized art had retired again. well, the last time he just kinda up and quit mysteriously. IIRC, when he came back he was going on about death threats or something to his family? anyway, an interesting character that art bell is... very interesting. taks

unfortunately, i'm a blues fan. 'nuff said. taks

chiggers are mites... larval mites, but also a type of arachnid which is what a tick is, too. missouri is notorious for their chigger infestations. regular part of my childhood chigger itching was... oh yeah. down in florida, we had some really cool spiders. the orb weaver was one of the neatest, as it is the lady making the big, complex spider webs. very cool. i used to let one of 'em hang out on my patio just because it was cool. interesting to watch how quickly them buggers get after their dinner (recently landed insect of some sort). taks

i have an extreme, and very rational, fear of ticks and chiggers... well, ticks at least. i hate chiggers but you can't really see 'em so it doesn't bug me, other than the itching. the recluses are quite common in missouri (where i grew up) though i was never bitten... hope you heal well taks

4 years? that's not patient... that's disturbing. taks

her, btw, crusader... disturbing, vol. disturbing. taks