Rhomal

I think there are some violent Buddhist sects, they are just more rare because the religion in general isn't as large. I'll have to look into it but I think I'd heard of some groups before. Regardless, fundamentalists is the wrong term here. Those who are "fundamentalist" in regard to Christianity literally interpret the Bible, but if they do so they would have to know of verses like "overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21) Those you are referring to clearly rate other principles higher. This has everything to do with the people and their hatreds than anything that the Bible or Christ told them to do. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This we agree with. They use the bible as a excuse for hatred. On that note, Bush is little better, stating in a 2000 tv interview he does not consider paganism/witchcraft a 'real religion'. (also 6 months ago one of his people also said the same thing (in a more PC way) when someone asked him if wicca gorups will get federal funding under the 'faith based initiatives' programs he started.) Last I knew freedom of religion ment freedom of ALL religions not just his. His religious intolorance is just one of the many things that turns my stomach about him. Again, how you can support such a person is beyond me. On the topic of 'the liberal media', please stop tooting that horn. You know you have more consertaive media on radio and cable then liberal. So stop with the 'media is all liberal' I can make a list a mile long of the consertative talk show hosts, and a only a handful of liberal.

1.5m/784k $69./month

Not that I am in the mood to keep going back and fourth, but my question is how you can support a party or even want to be assoicated with such who do something like this. GOP Voter Drive Accused of Tossing Cards By DEBORAH HASTINGS AP National Writer In several battleground states across the country, a consulting firm funded by the Republican National Committee has been accused of deceiving would-be voters and destroying Democratic voter registration cards. Arizona-based Sproul & Associates is under investigation in Oregon and Nevada over claims that canvassers hired by the company were instructed to register only Republicans and to get rid of registration forms completed by Democrats. ``We treat these complaints very seriously,'' said Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury. The Democratic office-holder said three complaints were filed with election officials throughout the state. He declined to provide details, citing the continuing investigation. Substitute teacher Adam Banse wanted a summer job with flexible hours, so he signed up to knock on doors in suburban Minneapolis and register people to vote. He quit after two hours. ``They said if you bring back a bunch of Democratic cards, you'll be fired,'' Banse contends. ``At that point, I said, `Whoa. Something's wrong here.''' http://home.netscape.com/redir.adp?_dci_ur...%5fhlm1%5fu%5f2

> He didn't do nothing. He did very little. A difference, but a minor one. Blowing up terrorist training camps and stopping a terrorist attack in CA during the new year 2000 celebartions is 'very little'? I guess the only way in your eyes to be 'strong' on terrorism is to start invading countries that cant possibly defend themsevles. As far as bush jr is concerned... something from the news wire today.. The Los Angeles Times is reporting that a top level CIA report showing the Bush administration blind to the threat of Al Qaeda before 9/11 has been suppressed by the Bush administration The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago. 'It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed,' an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that "the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward. Hes not saving grace from terrorism either apparently. > No one said he had the technology to launch a missle. What has always been postulated is that if he had the weapons he'd hand them off to others to do the job. The only people he could attack in the regoin would be the Israeli's, Kuwait, or his own people. So? Isnt that the regions job to deal with him? If he was such a real thread dont you think the more moderate middle east countries would have been seriously concerned? When central america was bady destabilized in the 80's did italy start invading countries? No the world let the people in the region deal with it. (the us, canada and mexico). Same should have been here. He was not a threat, period and we stuck out nose too deeply in something we had no business to > The UN was doing it's job so well wasn't it. Do you know how many Billions of dollars (since you love talking about that on Bush's buddies) that were stolen by Hussein and sent in bribes to the officials in the UN? *snip* Again, so? You can try to squirm you way and spin it all you want. The bottom line is: a. he was not a threat to us and b. he could not harm america. End of story. > Not sure what you are referring to here? If bush should be inpeached for lying/deceiving congress. > Surpluses are not good, they are sign of overtaxation. You need to go beyond your 101 econ course. Its a much more complex issue then 'overtaxation'. Thats just a repub talking point to downplay a good economy. I suppose in your opinion driving us into the larget deficit in history is good policy too. > But the balanced budget itself was done because of the Republican congress. Clinton didn't stand in the way, however, but he deserves no credit for creating that agenda. He did not. What short term memory you have. He was on his soap box talking about reducing the deficit during the primaries and his run agaisnt bush sr. back in 91/92. Congress had little choice but to follow along with it as if they didnt it would have been political suicide for the newly controled congress to show inaction on a faultering economy. > Modern liberals can hardly be easily compared to some of those you reference. Yes they created welfare programs but they certainly were not all against traditional values, etc. Who is agaisnt 'traditional values'? And liberal democrats are the ones who pushed/got done everything I mentioned. > Reagan was a great president in his own right, but sadly even at this point still too controversial I doubt you'd admit any of his successes yourself. His presidency had mixed results. I do give him credit for driving the USSR to the ground by outspending them. OTOH that policy left deficts for bush sr and clinton to fix. Then theres the iran/contra affair. > Lets not forget that Kennedy is to blame for escalating the Vietnam war to some extent as well, and the whole bay of pigs situation. I think if anyones to blame for it its LBJ more then JFK. > All presidents have their successes and failures. I dont disgaree. But unlike the repubs I look at both sides rather then one. (ie I have not heard you say one good thing about clinton, rather just repub talking points) Tho I have a difficult time finding something good about bush jr honestly. Perhaps you can list what he has done on the level of JFK, FDR, Clinton? > What aspects of the economy does a president have control over? You say you don't count everything against Bush and then you use that liberal talking point about lost jobs. His budgets, taxes and various policies/initiatives can all effect the economy for good or ill. Compleate control? No. But they can and do certainly have a noticable effect. Its not a talking point, its a fact.. you know.. those little things you repubs like to look away from?

While I have a healty respect for SETI and the advancments from it that has trickeled down to us from it. I have to agree with the camp its futile. A for effort but F on being realistic. Why do I say this? Many astronomers who speculate on this agree if other species who use some form of electronic communication are out there their forms of such are too advanced for us to pick up. We may very well, every day, be bombarded with signals from a higher communications network but if we dont know what to look for or have the technology to identify it its pointless. To use a more human analogy. If some aliens visited us in the 1880's using FM radio to communicate, the peeps on the wired devices using morse code to send msgs across the country (in the US) would have no idea it was happening nor could their devices pick such frequencies up. Same idea with SETI imo. Also, the frequences we are looking for, if we do pick something up they would have been traveling for so long, whom ever sent them, as a civilization, are prob long since dead. At BEST if we do pick something up its just going to prove we are not alone. But theres little chance IMO we can have any meaningful communication with them on that slim chance they use the same wave lenghts we use/understand.

> i was specifically referring to the fact that the intel clinton had, coincidentally the intel the entire world had, was that saddam had WMD. And before you pulled out the tired, and inaccurate, counter that bill did nothing against terrorists which always comes up sooner or later I wanted to clearify that up front. > two years ago, EVERYBODY thought saddam had WMDs, hence the resolutions to prove he had destroyed them... remember? Thats what weapon inspections, UN people seaching and destroying and cutting up his country with the no-fly zones were all about. He was contained and what they THOUGH he might have had posed no real threat to us. He did NOT have the technology to launch a missle with WMD at the US even with the worst possible situation from the reports I read about. Point being, he was a non-threat to us if we kept his country in check and let the UN do its job. But bush decided to go clean up daddys 'unfinished business' rather then have some patience. Then again, if he did that they couldnt pay these fat contracts to their buddies and have BILLIONS gone missing and unaccounted for. > perhaps wrong, but still not a lie. try again. Ok, when I work for your company and I cherry pick that finicials to report to you so I look good and get my bonus, I'll make sure to remind you I didnt lie when the company goes under. > perhaps again, Translation: I dont have the testicular fortitude to just say its wrong > but no matter how you spin it, No spin, just fact. > bush has committed no crime. In your opinion. Thats for a congressional inquiry to determin. > clinton lied under oath, a clear felony. Over sex. And again, who died because of it? What in your life was effected or what families were effected by him getting some in the white house? I do not claim he was right. We was most certainly in the wrong. But in the big picture its is a far less a issue then going to war by conning the congress. > clinton was summarily impeached by the house, and then acquitted by the senate. the latter occuring because the senate fully believed the impeachment was "punishment" enough, btw... And considering the offense, in essence, was he got caught with his pants down, the punishment was fitting. > opinion regarding the bush slam most certainly. either way, clinton is a liberal and the rest of the world likes our liberals. Perhaps liberals get the job done and lead rather then bully the world. If the schoolyard nice kid was transfered out and replaced by a bully I think id miss the nice kid too. Since were on the topic what has, seriously, consertivative presidents done in the past 50 yrs? what have they accomplished? I know liberals got us through a world war, got us to the moon, gave us the new deal, got us a record suplus to name just a few. > can't the same thing be said about bush? why didn't you respond with that when weiser_cain tried to give credit to clinton in the first place? it works both ways buddy... Never said otherwise, I critize bush on what he HAS control over. Not over the entire economy or control of it. And I do the same for clinton. I give him props for doing all he could and what aspects he does have control over, and what he did on that level worked far better then bush. Bush being the 1st president in 70 yrs or so to have a net loss of jobs.

> while bush's original speeches may have been misleading, they were summarily based on intelligence even clinton believed in at the time. not a lie and neither was bush under oath. clinton lied under oath. that is a felony. a big difference between bad decisions and outright lying. You need to stop getting all your news from repub talking points and get to the root and facts of the matters. Bill got intel about Osama (the attacker of 9/11 I might add unlike saddam) and destroyed several training camps which the repubs got their panties in a bunch about. So its damned if you do try to take a stab against terrorists, damned if you dont as your called weak apparently. (Of course this only applies to democrats) As for the intel, Bush cherry picked the intel and sent that intel to congress to make it seem sadaam was far more dangerious then he was. Thats flat out wrong. I agree a lie is a lie but the degrees are the point of contention. Who did bill hurt by being embarrased about his infedilities and lying? Did people get sent to a unjust war against a country who had no way to harm us? did his fling with monica and its coverup cause over 1,000 deaths and thousands more maimed and wounded for life? Jackson, Rosevelt, JFK they all had flings as well in the whitehouse. Only difference between them and bill, is bill was outted while in office rather then after. So I suppose those preisdents you have ill will towards as well then. Since a lie/coverup is a lie/coverup in your eyes with no shades of grey apparently. > he had the respect of the world because he's liberal. And here I thought it was because he used force as a last resort and built alliances rather then this cowboy diplomancy garbage bush likes to do. > he set the stage for the worst economic crash the world has seen. Yes the president has full control of the economy and no other factors are present that influence it. You need to take a 101 macro economics course. > get your facts straight before commenting. pot.. kettle.. black

Plus I didn't think we should have been asking him that question in the first place. Besides I can understand exactly whay he lied about cheating on his wife, and though I wouldn't cheat on anybody I can't say I wouldn't lie to cover up something like that. Lying to start a war is diffrent and the fact that no republican has called him on that reveals their hypocrisy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> From the AARP msg forum. - While suturing a laceration on the hand of a 90 year old man (he got his hand caught in a gate while working his cattle) the doctor and the old man were discussing Bush's health care reform ideas. The old man said "Well, ya know old Bush is a post turtle." The doctor was puzzled and asked him what he meant by a post turtle. The old man replied..."When you are driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle. You know he didn't get there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he can't get anything done while he's up there, and you just want to help the poor thing down!."

> Oh and Gorth Clinton lied under oath. No matter what weak excuse he gave that is unacceptable for the President to do, he is to up hold the law not break it. Clinton and a lot of Dems lost my respect when he did that and people were defending him. And if the dems controled congress we could impeach bush on what he has done. Whats worse, lying about a blowjob or running the country into the ground while lying to the american people and congress about a war? Clinton for his weakness of the flesh, did a damn good job with the economy and had the respect of the world. Something bush cant do on either count.

Yes running the last world super power is such a non-serious issue... what are they thinking taking the topics that effect our very lives seriously.

DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS: THE SEQUEL is based upon the highly successful role playing game, DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS. The sequel's adventure tells the story of an evil wizard who steals a black orb which controls a sleeping black dragon. An aspiring sorceress and a decorated warrior are summoned to defend the kingdom as evil forces lay waste. A battle for control of the kingdom unfolds in this classic tale of good vs. evil. _________ The summary sounds as if it has potential.. in fact sounds a bit of LotR-ish. Which is a good thing unless they totally botch it up. Look at it this way.. hard to get worse then the first thus odds are can only be better.. Also from the cast listing I dont see any returning cast from the first, which is mostly a good thing IMO.

Didn't know I was holding a gun to your head...

If I may inquire.. what wasnt clear about "short 20 sec clip fliming what appears to be a special effects scene of fire exploding and guards in armor being blown over by it."?

Thap's sister was able to chat with the dir after they shot this scene. The dir acknowledged the first move was "a pile of steaming ***t" and stated he was aiming for a much better quaility movie. Time will tell I am sure. On a related note, the producer of the 1st D&D movie has stated he wanted to make a trilogy and even a spin off tv series. Interesting, so we'll see.

NWN2 News is proud to announce we have a exclusive clip of the filming of the new Dungeons and Dragons 2 Movie. This was gotten by our Reporter Thapthim when his family was in Europe this fall. While not directly related to NWN2 we thought you would enjoy this short 20 sec clip fliming what appears to be a special effects scene of fire exploding and guards in armor being blown over by it. Please note this is only accessable for registered members in the Downloads area.

> uh, actually, i think the problem the biblical teachings have with alien lifeforms isn't really "there is NO intelligent life other than here" since that is not directly stated. the problem is twofold, actually... Thats for the most part the main point of my post. While the bible does not say or even imply, from what I recall we are the only intel/unique being in the universe many who stand behind the pulpit DO make such assertions. > 1. if there is life elsewhere, particularly intelligent, suddenly we aren't unique and what was god doing? timeshare? LOL > 2. if there is life elsewhere, particularly more advanced than us, the possibility that said life put us here intentionally increases. their current presence would possibly indicate a case of "lab-rat analysis" so to speak. this pretty much shoots the whole god thing in the foot, btw, as said alien life woulld actually be our "god." *nods* I more or less agree with your theory. Tho I am in the camp of reincarnation (I think there is a huge amount of data to validiate such a theory or at the very least raise some serious inquiry) I do not have a issue with accepting we are small fish in a VERY big pond.

Not really, the bible never makes it anywhere close to clear that there isn't other intelligent life in the universe. If we found other life it would be proof that some peoples assumptions based on theology are inaccurate. Some theologians would have something to answer for, but they shouldn't have been saying such ridiculous things in the first place. A good theologian leaves possibilities open rather than pretending like they know how everything is and will turn out. And there is plenty of room to do that. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with you 150%, but my point was MANY of them dont heed such notions. Their thumping their little bible (full of mistranslations and inconsistiances, but thats another topic) preaching because their god loves us how we can only be the only possible intel life in the universe or how we are the superior beings of said universe. I agree thats a leap they take and the bible does not say such, but then again much of what those people behind the pulpit preach is based on wishful thinking and fantasy rather then hard fact or data sadly. Now in fairness I am not saying all theologians go down that road, but many do. I can remember when I was a roman catholic had more then one sermen basically saying man will never find any other intel life in the galaxy because god made us. I also think it has to do with theologians trying to convience themselves theres more to life then this. And it scares the hell out of them that this is it. There may not be anything more then the moment we live in. We may very well be insignificant beings that lives, in relation to the entire lifespan of the universe, in a small moment of time and our lives, in the big picture, mean nothing. I think that scares many people, hence why they go to religion as they want to be told they are more then that, they want to hear they are important and significant. When, IMO, the reality of the situation is quite different but dont want to be told the truth.

You got a link to this anywhere? It's peaked my interest. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I used to run a pagan/occult/paranormal news and community site. If I had it still up I'd send you some links of news stories of reputiable sources that would boggle your mind. Stories like this happen on almost a WEEKLY basis. The main stream media are apprehensive (sp?) to carry such 9 out of 10 times for several reasons. a. If they do carry/follow the story and it IS a hoax they end up with egg on their face. And loosing face like that is a big no-no in that field. As they fear no one will take then seriously again. b. The bigger reason, IMO, is the 'dont shake the boat' mentality. Broadcasting something such as this and it be true/coverup would shake the foundations of our perceived reality and many beleif systems. thats something the powers that be dont want for obvious reasons. If its proven other intellegent life exists there goes a few 1000 yrs of teaching from the bible out the window for example.

Well, we linux users have had stable 64bit x86 OS releases since ~january this year... personally I've been using an amd64 3200+ on an MSI K8T neo FSIR2 since Aug/Sep last year and lurve 64bit. Content creation (mp3/divx encoding and compiling) is phenomenally fast. I use 32bit compatibility libraries for things unavailable in 64bit (like wine and windows apps and the nwn client). ut2004 has a 64bit client so its all good <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Leave it to the linux users to get on their soapbox each and every chance they get to state how great their OS is. They never miss a opertunity.. like clockwork and predictable. I should have known the linux drones would turn this in a linux rally point. :/ "look at me I have something you windoze users dont!" And if I sound a bit annoyed I am.

Let me guess - those of us that already have Windows 32bit will have to pay for Windows 64bit? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Will only come out in xp pro version and be same price as 32bit xp pro

There's already WinXP 64bit. Hopefully more and more drivers are being developed for that. Who knows when (and if !?) Longhorn really hits the shelves - not before '06 anyway. I can't wait to build a new 64bit system - always useful as far as more RAM goes. -Marc <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Some clarification. longhorn is the next gen OS. 2 yrs out, If I recall correctly it will come out in 2 flavors, 32/64 bit winxp 64bit is in beta currently and the final will be out Q1 next yr last I seen.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/549/549020p1.html Very interesting developments to say the least, and I should point out the publisher is atari...

I would like to request adding the ability of RDF/RSS file/feed to the msg forums. (As BioWare did). This way its easy for us news/community sites have a real time feed of the newset posts and the such here. Thanks for your consideration.