kumquatq3

I had thunder, but alas, it has been stolen EDIT: using your link, the trailer worked for me

Only because he forgot to include Star Wars: Rebellion

Now is it that god hates us, or does he just not exist?

Which means T3M4 will be useless once again. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> LOL! First thing that came to my mind too.

I have the trailer if anyone can host it or something so everyone can see it I'll send it to you btw, if it was still in question, he does have a lightsaber in it

Well, I think it's clear he has medical training of some sort. Maybe he lost his liceanse or never finish medical school or something. THen again, he could be a doctor. O, I don't recall the tattoo comment, but I remember seeing tatoos.

Really, do you live in sub-tropical Canada? Thats the island ruled by Castro right? I think so too What pisses me off is how the jungle isn't something to be feared anymore. Before they wet themselves having to walk off the beach, know it's:"a mile trech through the woods alone? Sweet!". The element of danger is going going gone.

K1 followed by the Xwing/tie fighter series

Well, there was the stick to the head during the trianglation but I know what you mean. It is just getting a bit too cliche at times. I don't particularly mind episodes like this without the SF element there, but there just not well done. I mean, one possibly imaginary non-speaking vision of Jacks father was able to make 2 episodes better than these last two. Maybe you just can't get by doing the sf thing every week. BTW, I think Saywer (the annoying guy) is one of the brightest spots on the show.

Just make the poll, you know you want too

Yo Mama

It can't be stopped now, the T.O.P.A.Z. has become self-aware

Thats not "relevant"????? But I agree with you on one thing, it's not a surprise

^ Signed Disgruntled in Illinois I think me and taks, while were on different sides, understand each others points. We argue about the details. I'm not claiming the world will end because Bush won and he's not saying I need to be happy about it. O, I don't live in chicago, btw

Of course it's being watched, Bush did win reelection :ph34r:

The episode was only better than last week and not much more. I cringed at dialogue delievery and the use of the whole "moth having to struggle to live" stuff being used yet again on tv. On a bright note, next week looks great!

Did you miss where I posted tha tbush just requested to raise the cap on the debt, the day after the election? O wait, that doesn't help at all. Look, bad things (in our opinion) are going to happen, we los tthe election. Just hope that the demos in the senate ban together to stop the really bad things. That and some of the justices can hang on for 4 more years...

oops... by the time i got to the bottom i thought i was quoting kumquat, assuming that's what you were referring to? taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> O, I see how it is, all us damn Liberals are alike to you huh?

yeah, Karl ****ING SPOKESMAN. he's a spokesman for god's sake. he's citing ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE. this is all... get over it. Spokesman???!?!? No, he's one of Bushs top political strategist. It's his job to know how to play with the people and get votes. Apprently he kinda knows what he is doing too. Actaully, they did vote pretty heavily compared to the past, but so did everyone else. Hence why they stayed at 17% of the total vote.

That is what is called a conservative myth. Fox news was even talking about it late last night. Which is what reminded me to bring it up. So you are agreeing with me that just because you label something, doesn't make it so. So again, the facts say Bush won by one of the smallest margins even for an incumbent, and several points lower than other incumbent winners in recent history. Worse if you compare it to just wartime incumbents. this whole statement is wrong Yes, in fact, there is PLENTY of evidence to support this. Turn on the tv for 15 minutes and they will break down what happened in ohio yet again for you. Pick your network. Apparently KARL ROVE sees some evidence in this. KARL ****ING ROVE Sorry, that trumpts "I know a guy with a degree that voted Republican"

Karl Rove is a liberal? Who would have thought.....

Remember how Bush said he wants to cut the debt in half by 2009? Well, Bush just called for the debt ceiling to be raised. Funny how he meantioned that just after the election. It has begun....

I think Bush can and will do things that we wil hate and that will further divide the country. but I don't think we'll be seeing race wars in the streets

That may be true, but the fact remains that his margin is low, no matter how you spin it. Even compared to recent years. Clinton won by a 9% margin in his second term and was right under 50% of the popular vote with a stong (as they go) 3rd party candidate taking votes (which didn't give him the large margin, the votes that went to perot would have been almost evenly split between the two on all legit accounts. it just kept him under 50%). Reagan also won by a very large margin, iirc. So recent history has shown incumbents that win, win by alot. If you tack on that this is a "war" time president, the margin of victory really reflects that it was a realitivly slim win. It is based off those exit polls, yes. They wern't wrong in the counties they were taken in, btw, the data IS good. Those "swing" counties, were most of the polls were taken, pointed to a Kerry victory....and Kerry won most of them (actually, I think he won all of them, but I don't have that off hand.). The problem was that those polls were applied to the state as a whole. What happened is that Bush had supporters come out in larger than expected numbers in counties that he was expected to win. In other states the exit polls were dead on What Karl Rove said in regards to this: And it's no secret that in semi-recent history Demos tend to be better educated as a whole. You can argue why that it, but it doesn't change the fact that it is.

You can say Bush has the largest number of popular votes ever, and you would be right...BUT: He has one of the lowest margins of victory ever for an incumbent. So you can say he won by x amount of votes and thats alot, but the percentage he won by is historically very very low. Not to meantion that too argue that a win by 3 million votes is amazing in the history of the US is to forget the large population growth through out the years. Hence why the margin of victory is the true indicator, in terms of history, and that is pretty low for Bush. He also has the most votes against him for a winning incumbent, if you want to continue to beat that drum, but it's essentially meaningless EDIT: I'm clearly biased, but I find it morbidly funny that Kerry (compared to Bush) cleaned up on votes from people with a college education or better. The president actaully lost that vote a great deal compared to his first campagin. Kinda says something about America.