for Ripped From The Headlines11/5/2008 c22 ST Lawrence
Indeed...we need Bobby Jindal. Palin needs to run for Senate in Alaska, get her needed "experience" the media feels she "needs" and run Jindal/Palin in 2012.
-S
Indeed...we need Bobby Jindal. Palin needs to run for Senate in Alaska, get her needed "experience" the media feels she "needs" and run Jindal/Palin in 2012.
-S
11/11/2006 c19 
54Andrew Joshua Talon
Several to go. (sigh) Let's hope so. Unfortunately, I'm starting to think that the moment we do leave, the whole Islamic world will plunge into war with eachother. Saddam was an evil bastard, but he kept the Sunnis and Shi'ites from declaring total war on eachother.
On one hand, at least they won't be targeting us or Israel. On the other, plenty of innocent people in the crossfire.
54Andrew Joshua TalonSeveral to go. (sigh) Let's hope so. Unfortunately, I'm starting to think that the moment we do leave, the whole Islamic world will plunge into war with eachother. Saddam was an evil bastard, but he kept the Sunnis and Shi'ites from declaring total war on eachother.
On one hand, at least they won't be targeting us or Israel. On the other, plenty of innocent people in the crossfire.
11/11/2006 c21 Andrew Joshua Talon
LOL, indeed. So, any thoughts on the election results? And the continued ignorance of the Western media to the Islamic threat?
I've been tempted to start a "Muhammad Joe" story. Basically, me being Muhammad Joe to present the truth of Islam and jihad to the readers in a sarcastic, humorous way. "How the hell you infidels believe some of this crap is beyond Osama and me, but oh well! Better for us!"
LOL, indeed. So, any thoughts on the election results? And the continued ignorance of the Western media to the Islamic threat?
I've been tempted to start a "Muhammad Joe" story. Basically, me being Muhammad Joe to present the truth of Islam and jihad to the readers in a sarcastic, humorous way. "How the hell you infidels believe some of this crap is beyond Osama and me, but oh well! Better for us!"
7/6/2006 c1 10K. Hopkins
after reading so much of your material and ill informed babble and ignorant naive ranting, ive come to think that you must be some kind of psychopath... sorry your a far right leaning individual who has no problem with whacked out neo-cons and tele-evangalists like rush limbaugh. well keep believing your paranoid fantasy where Europe has nothing better than have a little petty fued with the US, and that the whole world is out to get you. what ever floats your boat admiral. where in the US are you from exactly?
10K. Hopkinsafter reading so much of your material and ill informed babble and ignorant naive ranting, ive come to think that you must be some kind of psychopath... sorry your a far right leaning individual who has no problem with whacked out neo-cons and tele-evangalists like rush limbaugh. well keep believing your paranoid fantasy where Europe has nothing better than have a little petty fued with the US, and that the whole world is out to get you. what ever floats your boat admiral. where in the US are you from exactly?
11/25/2005 c11 2chitoryu12
There is no liberal bias in the media! The American media is all right-wing! Vote for Nader!
Well, you expected this kind of review, so here it is.
2chitoryu12There is no liberal bias in the media! The American media is all right-wing! Vote for Nader!
Well, you expected this kind of review, so here it is.
7/13/2005 c21 Z-Dub
*claps*
I agree with you for a change...you're right, Europe got pwned.
*claps*
I agree with you for a change...you're right, Europe got pwned.
7/11/2005 c1 ST Lawrence
"Yikes!" is right...I said the same thing reading your pathetic little review.
"And you are mistaken if you think they can only reach Japan. We don't KNOW, but most analysts believe North Korea could reach the West Coast"
Sweetie, they fired their longest range missile three months ago, and they barely got it beyond the Japanese islands. Furthmore, what analysts said the N. Koreans could hit the West Coast? If their names were Senator Kennedy or Reid or Pelosi or Boxer...I'd take what they say with a grain of salt..or maybe a shaker's worth. If you really want, maybe the North Koreans could hit a Hawaiian island, but the chances are so slim, its laughable.
"Second, do you understand the concept of MAD? Mutually Assured Destruction? The theory was that no one would ever use nuclear weapons again because they would know that they too would be destroyed if they did."
MAD, dumbshit, only works with equal powers-North Korea cannot fathom striking the United States the same say ("mutually") we would strike them. So drop that pipe dream kiddo.
"So while it's nice to say that he'll figure it out if we threaten him enough, the reality is he might just be crazy enough to decide that if he's going to go he may as well take us with him and use those weapons."
And he cannot, so don't worry about it. That argument is OUT the window.
Good trying though.
-S
"Yikes!" is right...I said the same thing reading your pathetic little review.
"And you are mistaken if you think they can only reach Japan. We don't KNOW, but most analysts believe North Korea could reach the West Coast"
Sweetie, they fired their longest range missile three months ago, and they barely got it beyond the Japanese islands. Furthmore, what analysts said the N. Koreans could hit the West Coast? If their names were Senator Kennedy or Reid or Pelosi or Boxer...I'd take what they say with a grain of salt..or maybe a shaker's worth. If you really want, maybe the North Koreans could hit a Hawaiian island, but the chances are so slim, its laughable.
"Second, do you understand the concept of MAD? Mutually Assured Destruction? The theory was that no one would ever use nuclear weapons again because they would know that they too would be destroyed if they did."
MAD, dumbshit, only works with equal powers-North Korea cannot fathom striking the United States the same say ("mutually") we would strike them. So drop that pipe dream kiddo.
"So while it's nice to say that he'll figure it out if we threaten him enough, the reality is he might just be crazy enough to decide that if he's going to go he may as well take us with him and use those weapons."
And he cannot, so don't worry about it. That argument is OUT the window.
Good trying though.
-S
6/28/2005 c1 Yikes
I think I can safely say, based on your profile, that you are Republican and support President Bush.
OK. That's lovely. You and half the US population. I'm OK with that.
What I'm NOT okay with is your ignorance.
First of all, North Korea may only HAVE a few nuclear weapons, but the concern is that it's developing more. And you are mistaken if you think they can only reach Japan. We don't KNOW, but most analysts believe North Korea could reach the West Coast. Are you willing to gamble with hundreds of thousands of lives, American or otherwise? You don't need an arsenal the size of the US's to cause damage. Hiroshima and Nagasaki ought to show that a few nuclear weapons can be devastating.
Second, do you understand the concept of MAD? Mutually Assured Destruction? The theory was that no one would ever use nuclear weapons again because they would know that they too would be destroyed if they did.
Guess what? That doesn't work with insane dictators. NO ONE can argue that the dictator of North Korea is sane. His actions clearly demonstrate that what we consider to be the most reasonable course of action is not what he believes to be. So while it's nice to say that he'll figure it out if we threaten him enough, the reality is he might just be crazy enough to decide that if he's going to go he may as well take us with him and use those weapons.
Ignorance, complacency and propaganda may make people feel better, but the world is not improved by any of them. Both the opinions you express and the quotes you chose for your profile demonstrate to me that you are influenced strongly by all three. I don't mind your opinions so much as I object to the utter disregard for other opinions and actual facts. Be more tolerant, please.
And that goes for all those that insist on bashing "reds," George W Bush, Republicans in general, and opinions that don't fit with liberal propaganda as well. The vast majority of the reviews I have read were at least as intolerant and ignorant as the writing itself. Several of them were more so. Insults get us nowhere. Discussion might actually (*GASP*) shake people from complacency and make them THINK.
I think I can safely say, based on your profile, that you are Republican and support President Bush.
OK. That's lovely. You and half the US population. I'm OK with that.
What I'm NOT okay with is your ignorance.
First of all, North Korea may only HAVE a few nuclear weapons, but the concern is that it's developing more. And you are mistaken if you think they can only reach Japan. We don't KNOW, but most analysts believe North Korea could reach the West Coast. Are you willing to gamble with hundreds of thousands of lives, American or otherwise? You don't need an arsenal the size of the US's to cause damage. Hiroshima and Nagasaki ought to show that a few nuclear weapons can be devastating.
Second, do you understand the concept of MAD? Mutually Assured Destruction? The theory was that no one would ever use nuclear weapons again because they would know that they too would be destroyed if they did.
Guess what? That doesn't work with insane dictators. NO ONE can argue that the dictator of North Korea is sane. His actions clearly demonstrate that what we consider to be the most reasonable course of action is not what he believes to be. So while it's nice to say that he'll figure it out if we threaten him enough, the reality is he might just be crazy enough to decide that if he's going to go he may as well take us with him and use those weapons.
Ignorance, complacency and propaganda may make people feel better, but the world is not improved by any of them. Both the opinions you express and the quotes you chose for your profile demonstrate to me that you are influenced strongly by all three. I don't mind your opinions so much as I object to the utter disregard for other opinions and actual facts. Be more tolerant, please.
And that goes for all those that insist on bashing "reds," George W Bush, Republicans in general, and opinions that don't fit with liberal propaganda as well. The vast majority of the reviews I have read were at least as intolerant and ignorant as the writing itself. Several of them were more so. Insults get us nowhere. Discussion might actually (*GASP*) shake people from complacency and make them THINK.
6/21/2005 c21 RCS
Ironic that the country that pushed for this new "superpower" is the very country that started the ball rolling in its failure. Ah, it's good to keep our status as the world's only superpower.
Ironic that the country that pushed for this new "superpower" is the very country that started the ball rolling in its failure. Ah, it's good to keep our status as the world's only superpower.
6/19/2005 c21 2Another Rogue
Americans usually don't get Europe, and you perfectly proved it. You missed the whole point.
Your part on the US constitution is completely unnecessary, because the 400-something articles in the European document are not a real constitution, but one treaty replacing about 5 others. Besides, there was no coomon language in the US - they were only a few votes apart from choosing Dutch as the American langauge. And becvause the American constitution has only a few pages, you need dozens of extra lawbooks to correct for that. The only point you're right about is the lack of a common necessity.
2Another RogueAmericans usually don't get Europe, and you perfectly proved it. You missed the whole point.
Your part on the US constitution is completely unnecessary, because the 400-something articles in the European document are not a real constitution, but one treaty replacing about 5 others. Besides, there was no coomon language in the US - they were only a few votes apart from choosing Dutch as the American langauge. And becvause the American constitution has only a few pages, you need dozens of extra lawbooks to correct for that. The only point you're right about is the lack of a common necessity.
6/17/2005 c21 M.Flames
The first half of this essay is a pretty standard jab at Europe, and is fairly amusing. Your conclusion of "why our constitution works" is a little beside the point though. Europe isn't concerned with whether it works, it can't get the thing ratified. And the reason the American Constituion was ratified wasn't because of "A Common Language" ("English" was chosen as the legal language by a very small majority, with German being a very close second) and while Brevity is fairly relevant, that alone won't make or break it. And instead of "Greater Unity of Purpose", perhaps you should just say "Greater Unity", since the American Constitution was coming out of the Articles of Confederation, which had come out of purely English rule. In essence, the American constituion was ratified because it was just the most successful of a series of ruling documents and/or forces. This "EU" stuff is an almost entirely new construction with no real previous precedent, at least not in the post-industrial world.
Maybe that's reading too much into a short jab at Europe (and mostly France). But if you're going to gloat over the American political system, at least you should do it with the right argument: Americans are just better. Where's the Madison, the Hamilton, and the Washington of Europe? They don't have any. It's because of the "Founding Fathers" that the American constitution was ratified, not necessarily because of the constitution itself.
The first half of this essay is a pretty standard jab at Europe, and is fairly amusing. Your conclusion of "why our constitution works" is a little beside the point though. Europe isn't concerned with whether it works, it can't get the thing ratified. And the reason the American Constituion was ratified wasn't because of "A Common Language" ("English" was chosen as the legal language by a very small majority, with German being a very close second) and while Brevity is fairly relevant, that alone won't make or break it. And instead of "Greater Unity of Purpose", perhaps you should just say "Greater Unity", since the American Constitution was coming out of the Articles of Confederation, which had come out of purely English rule. In essence, the American constituion was ratified because it was just the most successful of a series of ruling documents and/or forces. This "EU" stuff is an almost entirely new construction with no real previous precedent, at least not in the post-industrial world.
Maybe that's reading too much into a short jab at Europe (and mostly France). But if you're going to gloat over the American political system, at least you should do it with the right argument: Americans are just better. Where's the Madison, the Hamilton, and the Washington of Europe? They don't have any. It's because of the "Founding Fathers" that the American constitution was ratified, not necessarily because of the constitution itself.
6/17/2005 c21 Retlor
Ironically, the French rejected it largely because they believed it to be an Anglo-Saxon grab for power, wheras the English wish to reject it largely because we beleive it to be a French grab for power.
The main reason that a federal European state is that all the different countries hate each other.
Ironically, the French rejected it largely because they believed it to be an Anglo-Saxon grab for power, wheras the English wish to reject it largely because we beleive it to be a French grab for power.
The main reason that a federal European state is that all the different countries hate each other.
6/16/2005 c21 Mbwun
I'm driven to wonder why everyone has such a problem with a stronger European Union. (Well, I can understand why Europeans themselves might, but Americans...) Another superpower might help stabilize the world, and would certainly do away with some global anti-Americanism, since we wouldn't be the only top dog anymore. And hell, it might be good for the economy... Lord knows it could use just about anything right now.
That said, the EU was always built on shaky grounds. The major powers are France, the UK, and Germany, all of whom have conflicting agendas both internationally and at home. You've got a lot of racism and general "Old World" attitudes in the way the aforementioned France, UK, and Germany deal with Eastern European members and Turkey, and the various European militaries are all over the place as far as integration would be concerned. All in all, a very mixed bowl... but hardly the apocalyptic amalgamation you and others seem to think.
~He Who Walks On All Fours
PS - Though seriously-400 pages? It's supposed to be a constitution, not a policy handbook! WTF?
I'm driven to wonder why everyone has such a problem with a stronger European Union. (Well, I can understand why Europeans themselves might, but Americans...) Another superpower might help stabilize the world, and would certainly do away with some global anti-Americanism, since we wouldn't be the only top dog anymore. And hell, it might be good for the economy... Lord knows it could use just about anything right now.
That said, the EU was always built on shaky grounds. The major powers are France, the UK, and Germany, all of whom have conflicting agendas both internationally and at home. You've got a lot of racism and general "Old World" attitudes in the way the aforementioned France, UK, and Germany deal with Eastern European members and Turkey, and the various European militaries are all over the place as far as integration would be concerned. All in all, a very mixed bowl... but hardly the apocalyptic amalgamation you and others seem to think.
~He Who Walks On All Fours
PS - Though seriously-400 pages? It's supposed to be a constitution, not a policy handbook! WTF?
6/13/2005 c20 8Rosa Vernal
Oy, you, update more. I find myself compelled to read your writing so I know why it is that I write incoherent liberal rants.
8Rosa VernalOy, you, update more. I find myself compelled to read your writing so I know why it is that I write incoherent liberal rants.