Yeah Coheed and Cambria aren't THAT bad.

time consumer reminds me of tom sawyer so much.

[i]Junesong Provision[/i] is seriously one of my favorite songs ever.

[QUOTE=cobert;14101086]Yeah.[/QUOTE]

I just threw up in my mouth.

Except [i]The Second Stage Turbine Blade[/i] is radddd.

Fu[size=2]c[/size]k [i]Good Apollo[/i].

And while were on the subject of bands I like that nobody in here does (that I know of), Im listening to The Dismemberment Plan again.

I'm just saying that comparing Coheed to Rush made me throw up in the mouth.

Rush is elite.

I see I see.

We played YYZ for a recital. I pwned on bass.

I hate Rush though.

I got bored with the Dismemberment Plan pretty quickly. And stop comparing Rush to Coheed or I'll punch all of you.

Alot of people around here like the Dismemberment Plan. I don't know why, though. I think they are lame.

I like The Dismemberment Plan. They have this one song that's like:

'Till Todayyyy
Ohhhh
'Till Today

I forget what it's called. I'm pretty sure its not called 'Till Today.

Some of their songs rule, though; whichever other songs are on that album.

Rush is not elite.

They're the worst band ever. Besides maybe Tool.

dude you gave a circle takes the square album a higher score than minor threats discography...

I don't like Rush either. I find them really irritating.

[QUOTE=pixiesfanyo;14102977]Rush is not elite.

They're the worst band ever. Besides maybe Tool.[/QUOTE]

Ugh no.

Haha

Minor Threat Discog > CTTS discog by far

If you could only listen to Minor Threat or CTTS, who would you choose?

Hm. Probably CTTS.

But, that EP was rated two years ago. And I recently changed my MT discography rating.

MT's discography is better than that CTTS EP.

[QUOTE=whiteminority;14085691]Look at how many copies of the main scapegoat of the violent video game debate (Grand Theft Auto) have been sold then look at the number of violent youth acts. They're so small they can be known as anomalies, it's up to parents to teach their children that shooting people is f[size="2']u[/size]cked. The games have those damn ratings for a reason to indicate that these games have some violent material, that being said I've been playing the GTA series since I was about 10 when my older brother bought number 2 for the Dreamcast and COMMON SENSE told me that killing people is wrong and I never thought of re-enacting what I saw. Parents need to stop blaming entertainment products and start stepping up their main job as a person for the 18 years that child lives with them BEING A PARENT. Blaming a video game for making someone's little Jonny go psycho is like blaming McDonald's for making you obese; take some god damn responsibility for your own actions.[/QUOTE]
i think you're misunderstanding what i'm saying. its not that i think it will have a conscious effect on kids. i don't believe they will think that something is ok to do just becasue they saw it in a game. i agree, thats ridiculous, and in the cases where it might actually happen, i agree that it would be the parents fault.

what i'm talking about is different. you can't notice any changes. its just that the safeguard thats in our brains that we never realize is there until the moment to kill comes is eroded without us being aware. it wasn't until the moment to kill came that the 80-85% of US infrantrymen in world war II discovered that they couldn't fire at the enemy. operant conditioning destroys the resistance in modern soldiers without them ever realizing it was tehre or that something in their mind has changed. when the moment to kill comes, that resistance isn't there and they never know that it once was. video games condition in the same manner. thats what i'm talking about, not some ridiculous idea of a conscious erosion of morals.

[QUOTE=cbmartinez;14088128]My mistake, he was killed by the Bush Administration.

I don't know, it seems like we're going to get into an argument of semantics, when do we interfere and when do we not, you know? Having troops in Iraq during Clinton's administration isn't the same as what is going on now. In Kosovo, Clinton was working behind NATO, which is a lot different than defying the UN blatantly like we did in Iraq. Again, it's semantics, sure it they both defied the UN but at least by acting as part of the NATO force, there was less chance of long term and large scale commitment. Hey, maybe it was just luck that we went in and out of Kosovo so fast and Bush is stuck in Iraq, but being a Democrat, I gotta point more effective military strategy. As far as humanitarian cause, again, it all goes back to semantics. Humanitarian doesn't mean supporting every thing, risk and the seriousness of the event must be assessed. Darfur, 400,000 dead, 2 million displaced, Kosovo, 850,000 displaced. These things are pretty imminent humanitarian conflicts to me. And similarly, both of these regions are in political disarray. Now, I've never been able to establish a real number for how many people Saddam supposedly killed. Sure he suppressed but the government was stable and suppression exists everywhere. I simply don't see Iraq as a serious enough conflict for us to be involved, an the UN didn't think so either (I know, they didn't think Kosovo was either). Sure, their were the reasons of WMDs and the harboring of Al Qaeda but time has proven both of these accusations to be false. The War In Iraq is a big mess but the hypocrisy that goes on within foreign policy just makes it all the more upsetting. North Korea is clearly a more imminent threat, Darfur is clearly more imminent (UN think so on this one), even Iran is more imminent. The reason we're in Iraq is for oil. George W. Bush lied to the American public from day one. There were no WMDs, Saddam was not harboring Al Qaeda, and the mission sure as hell wasn't accomplished in 2003.

As far as the Clinton thing, I didn't mean to attack you man (preemptive strike heheh). You're the smartest guy on here in regards to politics and you definitely have me on a couple of those points. I definitely need to think this stuff over. In the mean time, I wait for your response.[/QUOTE]

Ya, the operations in Iraq under Clinton were very different, I was just saying that the change was in nature of involvement, not area of involvement. And I can completely understand you disagreeing with those changes.

As far as that involvement goes, the majority of the Iraqi people wanted Hussein gone, the majority of the governments in the region wanted him gone, and we wanted him gone. The status quo was no good. Over about a decade, there were nearly endless combat air patrols over half of Iraq, numerous air strikes, attempts by the Iraqis to shoot down aircraft, refusals to admit weapons inspectors, ect. The only ways that it would end were if the US finally gave up trying to keep Hussein in check or if the regime was ended. By looking at his history, we can see that there is no way he would ever have been safe to leave in power unchecked. So that left only one option for changing the status quo.

You see it as hypocritical that we took action against Iraq, but not Iran or North Korea. Well, the situations are different for all three of those states. The situations are such that military action against North Korea was/is very unappealing for various reasons that I won’t get into for the sake of post length, but I’m sure you are already aware of. With Iran, four years ago it was much less of a threat than it is today. At that time, Iraq appeared to be a more significant threat. It was estimated that Iran was a decade away from a bomb at that time, and the current extremist president of Iran wasn’t in power either. Also, a military option, while possible, was far from ideal, and it likely would have turned out much worse at its best than Iraq could have turned out if done right. If handled much better, Iraq really could have been one of the easiest, most bloodless "regime changes" possible. Iraq was the logical choice for a threat to deal with militarily for that reason and also because it would have probably brought Iran into check too. Remember that after it appeared that the US had ending Hussein’s regime effortlessly that Libya gave up its weapons program. Well, the creation of a stable, US-back Iraqi government with US military bases in Iraq would, in my opinion, have led Iran in the same direction. Just look at how much our difficulty in Iraq has emboldened Iran. Our success would have had just as significant an effect but in the opposite way, and done much to diminish other threats in the region (this may seem like a stretch, but history shows many times how geopolitical shifts like that have this remarkable ability to alter other geopolitical realities).

So a success in Iraq would have greatly improved our geopolitical position in the world, as well as that of our allies, and would have only had bad effects for the Iraqis that were part of Hussein's regime and our other enemies in the region, such as Iran and the Islamic extremists. The problem was that it got completely ****ed up. Bush trusted some very experienced people but they failed. As you can tell, I agreed with the goal in Iraq for the most part. However, I disagree with nearly every single aspect of its execution, up until a few weeks ago. Its hard to imagine how it could have been handled worse. Bush is the leader, its all on him, like he stated: “mistakes have been made, and the responsibility rests with me.”

As far as the lying goes, I don’t think he was attempting to deceive the American people. When he declared “victory”, he believed that. It took quite a while for many in the administration to get their heads out of their asses and realize what was really going on. As far as intelligence goes, I don’t think he was really lying to the American people there either. I think he truly believed Saddam had the weapons. Basically there were some contradictory reports, and Hussein either had the weapons or he didn’t, both positions can’t be true. Bush believed he did, so he accepted the intelligence that backed that position as true and rejected the opposing. It turned out to be wrong, and he bears responsibility for that. But the idea that Bush led America to believe Saddam had wmds, while Bush actually believed that he didn’t isn’t accurate in my opinion. The idea that Hussein was somehow connected to 9/11 was completely untrue. I agree with you there. However, it is true that there were links to terrorism.

And could you elaborate on your war for oil statement?

On NATO, it’s a military organization, not a political one. I agree it would have been much better if we had more international support; I really wish that had been the case. But I think a military alliance should be brought into a war only if it serves a military purpose, not a political one. In this case, having NATO involved would have done more harm than good. We had more than enough military capability with the “coalition of the willing.” Having the under-trained, under-equipped, largely ineffective forces that make up much of the rest of NATO there would not have been helpful. Much of this was demonstrated in Kosovo.

And thanks for the compliment. In not too long you could know more than I do now. I’m discussing this so much with you because I respect your opinion. Most places on the internet where this stuff is discussed, like the political forum on this site, I avoid due to the type of people that are usually participating in the discussions.

hopefully all that rambling made some sense. haha.

srt-4. i can imagine every girl you've ever been with being severely disappointed with your sheer ability to waste so much time doing s[I]h[/I]it nobody cares about.

I think srt is a really intelligent guy who has his s[size=2]hi[/size]t in order.

I bet the dude's hung like an elephant.

[QUOTE=Matt?;14100200]yes[/QUOTE]

you still name?

[QUOTE=pixiesfanyo;14102977]Rush is not elite.

They're the worst band ever. Besides maybe Tool.[/QUOTE]

Pixiesfanyo = worst joke account ever.

[QUOTE=srt-4;14104256]i think you're misunderstanding what i'm saying. its not that i think it will have a conscious effect on kids. i don't believe they will think that something is ok to do just becasue they saw it in a game. i agree, thats ridiculous, and in the cases where it might actually happen, i agree that it would be the parents fault.

what i'm talking about is different. you can't notice any changes. its just that the safeguard thats in our brains that we never realize is there until the moment to kill comes is eroded without us being aware. it wasn't until the moment to kill came that the 80-85% of US infrantrymen in world war II discovered that they couldn't fire at the enemy. operant conditioning destroys the resistance in modern soldiers without them ever realizing it was tehre or that something in their mind has changed. when the moment to kill comes, that resistance isn't there and they never know that it once was. video games condition in the same manner. thats what i'm talking about, not some ridiculous idea of a conscious erosion of morals.[/QUOTE]

Ok, I understand what you are saying a bit better now. I don't think you can put all that blame upon video games though, you take violent movies or even the nightly news is filled with images that make the population have a lower value of human life.

I agree that young children shouldn't be playing these games because of the desensitizing that occurs in their minds, however, I still think it should be the parents call on whether the game can be played or not.

[QUOTE=I0Played0Bass;14105531]I think srt is a really intelligent guy who has his s[size=2]hi[/size]t in order.

I bet the dude's hung like an elephant.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I mean sure he's intelligent.

But, his four page long speeches about politics are just so pointless it's ridiculous.

still name

[QUOTE=I0Played0Bass;14105531]I think srt is a really intelligent guy who has his s[size=2]hi[/size]t in order.

I bet the dude's hung like an elephant.[/QUOTE]

prolly loololol

i think you're misunderstanding what i'm saying

I read a quote from the president once that said "They misunderestimated me".