Searching "comments":
| # | Comment | Survey |
|---|---|---|
| 21 | > Frosty
> > I haven't read any of these delightful sci-fi/fantasy > novels..or any of the others. I think you'd really dig Nina Kimberly. If you don't want to/can't afford to buy a copy, it is available as a podcast. http://www.podiobooks.com/title/nina-kimberly-the-... | Which of these books I read in 2009 have you ever read? |
| 22 | Not all companies, but a lot if not most of them are, yes. | Do you believe companies are being untruthful to their employees? |
| 23 | Ab-so-fraggin-lutley! | Do you agree with the following statement: Ignorance is forgivable. Satisfaction with ignorance is inexcusable. |
| 24 | It's all in the execution. There's really no such thing as a bad idea in art, only bad execution. | Do you like the concept of movie prequels? |
| 25 | Really. Look at the Clue movie from the 80s. On paper, it seems like a horrible concept, but the movie itself turned out to be brilliant. Author Jim Butcher's best selling Codex Alara(sp?) series is a combination of two "bad ideas" he merged into sci-fi/fantasy gold. The thumbnail version of the story is, he was arguing on an IRC chat with a fellow author, and he made that point I did; no such thing as a bad idea. The other author disagreed, and challenged Jim to make a good story out of a bad idea. Jim not only accepted the challenge but said, "No, give me TWO bad ideas, and I can do something with them." (All quotes are paraphrases). The other author says. "OK. First bad idea; the Lost Roman Legion. It's been done hundreds of times they all should've found by now." Jim goes, "OK, Lost Roman legion. What else?" "Pokemon!" Pokemon of course being a cross being the Shinto religion, and professional wrestling. The rest is New York Times Bestselling history. | Do you like the concept of movie prequels? |
| 26 | A one time $6 million lump sum pay out immediately. | You win $10 million on the lottery, which would you opt for? |
| 27 | I was the only one in the theater for an indie film called One back in 2000, then I was alone for Steven Soderbergh's under the radar faux-documentary Full Frontal. Those are the only two instances I can think of. | Have you or your group ever been the only people watching a film in a cinema? |
| 28 | > Other : In the first video, the woman was right,
> GWB did inherit the attacks, although I don't > mean from Clinton. He inherited it from Carter, > Regan, Bush 1, and Clinton. The single DUMBEST thing I have EVER seen coming from you dude. Really? REALLY? 9/11 happened nine months into Bush's first term! I don't recall anyone in the Clinton admin. claiming they inherited the first WTC attack, or Oklahoma City. > In that second video, > that woman probably meant to say there were no > terrorist attacks since 9/11. Every President > inherits whatever the other presidents done (the > good and the bad). Which is still wrong. How about the 2001 anthrax attacks and the 2002 attack against an El Al ticket counter at LAX? Or the failed Shoe Bomber? Then there was this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_U... Those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head. I'm sure with about 2 minutes and Google I could find more. > Which is true, there wasn't a single terrorist > attack since 9/11. Lie. See above. > Which means Bush actually > knew what he was doing during the next 7 years. Except he didn't, because you are flat out lying. > There also wasn't a single terrorist attack > during the 1 year Obama was in office. So he > seems to know what he's doing too. No successful ones at least. Well, no, wait, there was the murder of Dr. George Tiller. It was a deliberate murder of a civilian in order to achieve a political objective. But of course the killer was a White Christian so the So-Called Liberal Media won't call it what it is. But at least we caught this guy, just like we caught the Underpants Bomber. Can we say the same for Osama Bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri? | If the American mainstream news media has a "Liberal Bias," then why are so many people allowed to go on TV and claim that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch? |
| 29 | > You know, usually I get quite pissed when Frostie
> launches into calling people liars but it IS pretty > far out there to say there were no terrorist attacks > since 9/11. Wish I could Plus you twice on that one.  | If the American mainstream news media has a "Liberal Bias," then why are so many people allowed to go on TV and claim that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch? |
| 30 | >
> |> The single DUMBEST thing I have EVER seen > coming from you dude. Really? > |> REALLY? 9/11 happened nine months into Bush's > first term! I don't > |> recall anyone in the Clinton admin. claiming > they inherited the first > |> WTC attack, or Oklahoma City. > |> > > Perhaps I should have phrased that whole paragraph > better. Yes, I would argue that Bush "inherited" > 9/11. And also, yes, I would also go as far > as to argue that Clinton "inherited" the OK city > bombings. By that I mean, Muslim extremists > have been a problem the US faced for decades before > GWB even got elected. Right or wrong, the past > decisions and actions of previous presidents have > led to Muslim's hating the US (for one reason > or another). It is true that GWB has inherited > extremist Muslims being angry at the US. And > its also true that Al Quaida was at least planning > the attacks even before GWB got elected. > > It is also true that there were always right-wined > anarchists out there who hate the government. > The Tim McVeigh mentality was around decades > (or even centuries) before Clinton got elected. > Just ask President William McKinley. He had > the learn the hard way. So in a way Clinton did > inherit the OK city bombing. I was using a much > looser definition of "inherited". Looser than what Perino and Matalin and Guiliani were implying. > Clearly, the > 9/11 attacks didn't happen during the 8 minutes > that Bush was getting inagurated. > > > > |> Which is still wrong. How about the 2001 > anthrax attacks and the 2002 > |> attack against an El Al ticket counter at > LAX? Or the failed Shoe > |> Bomber? Then there was this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_U... > |> Those are just the ones I could think of > off the top of my head. I'm > |> sure with about 2 minutes and Google I could > find more. > |> > > Ok, I should rephrase that. There wasn't a single > major and successful terrorist attack. So while your defintion of inherited is very loose, your definition of terrorism is extremely narrow? > Also, > I am not sure if I would include a shooting as > a "terrorist" attack. Beleive it or not, there doesn't have to be explosions, or more than double digit fatalities to count as an act of terrorism. > I generally count bombs, > planes, bio, etc. Otherwise, we would need to > count Columbine as a terrorist attack. Not necessarily. The purpose of terrorism is to use FEAR to bring about political or social change. No definition of the word I have seen has been as narrow as yours. Using your definition, a lot of the IRA's attacks (ones that involved guns as opposed to bombs) wouldn't count as terrorism. > And quite > frankly, calling every deranged gun man in the > clock tower a terrorist seems a bit of a misuse > of the term, albeit its an annoying trend. > I'm not the one misusing the word hear. The word, as I said, in no dictionary I've ever seen narrows it as much as you are. There need not even be death for it to be terrorism. If the motive is to cause fear, a synonym for terror of course, than it is an act of terrorism, be it done by way of bombs, guns, knives, or TV commercials. If the motive is simply to kill, or revenge, or even the satiating of the pleasure of a sadist, than it's murder. > > |> |> Which means Bush actually > |> |> knew what he was doing during the > next 7 years. > |> > |> Except he didn't, because you are flat out > lying. > |> > > Calling people liars (true or not), and especially > if its just a matter of different definitions > or the other person just being wrong generally > makes you come off as a dick. Not that you are. > Just sayin'. > That's the saddest thing about this new century of ours. Somehow it became more acceptable to lie, than to call people who lie, liars. Of all the lame social trends I've seen in the past ten years, that's the one that enrages me the most. > > |> |> There also wasn't a single terrorist > attack > |> |> during the 1 year Obama was in office. > So he > |> |> seems to know what he's doing too. > |> > |> No successful ones at least. Well, no, wait, > there was the murder > |> of Dr. George Tiller. It was a deliberate > murder of a civilian in > |> order to achieve a political objective. > But of course the killer was > |> a White Christian so the So-Called Liberal > Media won't call it what > |> it is. But at least we caught this guy, > just like we caught the Underpants > |> Bomber. Can we say the same for Osama Bin > Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri? > > I guess we can sort of count that Fort Knox as > one. Again, for some strange reason, I have > a tough time considering violence using firearms > as terrorism. > Not according to law enforcement officials. Maj. Hassan's deal seems, at least at this juncture, to be more a mental breakdown/"suicide by cop" deal. I'll wait until the final report though before I comment any further on that. But as per your last point, that is simply narrowminded thinking. The number 1 definition of terrorism at Dictionary.com is, -noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. Like I said, if the goal is to cause a nation, say the United States, to dramatically alter it's society, say, how we've treated prisoners of war since oh, WWII for example, by means of making us afraid, then regardless of how it is done, be it by flying airplanes into buildings, or convincing people that one of the two major political parties doesn't care or won't respond "properly" if people fly airplanes into buildings, than either is an act of terrorism. | If the American mainstream news media has a "Liberal Bias," then why are so many people allowed to go on TV and claim that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch? |
