Jump to content

Home

rccar328

Members
  • Posts

    585
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Location
    Right where I should be.

rccar328's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

10

Reputation

  1. Agreed...but I was pretty pissed when I heard about it.
  2. My personal take: Evil is a cultural construct - not necessarily a catch-all, but evil is defined by society, and each person within the society decides how they will define evil. What is determined to be evil by society as a while is sort of a "majority rules" kind of system. One example of this is sex: many things are considered acceptable today that were previously considered evil or, at least, shameful. That being said, there are simultaneously certain 'self-evident truths' when it comes to what is good vs. what is evil. For instance, just because many in early societies felt that slavery was justifiable, or even good, that didn't make it good. The act was justified in the minds of the persons carrying out the acts, but those acts were by their nature evil. The same can be said of the Nazis with the Holocaust or the Khmer Rouge and the Killing Fields, among other examples. There is something in human nature that finds certain acts to be evil, and while there have been instances of societies that have not defined those acts as evil, there is usually some sort of over-riding ideology in those societies that the societies' leaders use to indoctrinate the citizenry into believing that evil acts are justified or good. So, to simplify things a bit: There are basically two kinds of evil: evil that is defined by society, and evil that is defined by "natural law," or "God's law."
  3. Link President Bush has declared a "state of emergency" in order to secure funds to pay for security for the upcoming inauguration of Barack Obama. Personally, I think this is despicable. I've seen dozens of reports about all of the parties, balls, and the parade they'll be having for the inauguration...it looks like they're set to spend thousands & thousands (if not a few million) of dollars on the inauguration ceremonies in a day when the economy is on the downswing. I remember when President Bush was elected (both times) hearing complaints about excessive spending on his inaugurations...but I haven't heard many complaints about Obama's inauguration...probably because his being elected was supposedly so 'historic.' Well, the only thing more historic than Obama's being elected president is our national debt, but no one in our government can seem to get it through their heads that increased government spending isn't solving our economic problems, and that cutting spending may actually be worth a try. Personally, I think the use of the 'state of emergency' declaration just to get money to pay for security for the inauguration is an abuse of power. A war is an emergency. A natural disaster is an emergency. An oath, a speech, a parade, and a bunch of parties does not in any way constitute an emergency, and any American with a modicum of common sense should be pissed off about this.
  4. This is a branch-off from the off-topic discussion we got into in this thread. The question is this: which party's politicians are bigger scumbags, Republican or Democrat? Most Republican politicians purport to be for conservative family values, yet again and again Republican politicians get caught up in sex scandals (most notably Mark Foley & Larry Craig). Most of the time, Republican politicians caught in these scandals don't remain in power for very long after they're caught, and the scandal pretty much kills their political career. Democrat politicians, on the other hand, don't usually make any claims about supporting conservative family values. Democrats have also been caught up in sex scandals (most notably Gerry Studs, Mel Reynolds & Bill Clinton). Republicans who say they stand for family values and then engage in this kind of behavior are hypocrites...but, then, so are Democrats who condemn Republicans engaged in scandals and then support those in their own party who are caught in the same type of behavior. So which is worse: a party that tries to stand up for values but struggles with scumbag politicians engaging in reprehensible behavior, or a party that stands up for "anything goes," and doesn't seem to care when members of their own party engage in this type of behavior?
  5. I think this thread has gone sufficiently off-topic to justify branching off...I'm gonna create a new thread for this discussion.
  6. The difference is: the vast majority of Republicans caught up in those "embarrassing sex scandals and bribery scandals" aren't still in office. Bill Clinton stayed in office after committing adultery and perjury. Gerry Studs was applauded by Congressional Democrats. William Jefferson has been indicted, yet he's still there. Yes, many Republican politicians say that they have values in order to win votes...and then it turns out that they're hypocrites. But most Republicans don't tolerate hypocrisy in their leaders. You, instead, think it's better to have politicians who have no values at all. Oh, and there's a reason that the Republicans in Congress have such low approval ratings: they've been acting more and more like Democrats lately, and that tends to piss Republican voters off. The Republican party is entering a transition phase. It's basically turning into a struggle between conservatives and neo-cons as to where the party is going to go in the future. Those of us who believe that our politicians should be held to higher standards than the average Joe aren't happy with the modern Republican party, but it's hard to vote for someone else (I'm a fan of the Constitution Party, myself), when the alternative party seems to have no values at all. So, I stick to my assertion from my last post: throw all the bums out & start over.
  7. TK: I think Totenkopf summed it up pretty well. It doesn't matter whether you think it should or shouldn't have been investigated...it was investigated, whether you like it or not. The fact that Clinton lied about it just goes to show that he knew he screwed up. He knew he was wrong, so he lied to try to get out of the situation. Also, the fact that the Democrats have no moral standards is nothing to be proud of - it just shows how low the Democrats have fallen, and why they shouldn't be held up a leaders. The party that supported Gerry Studs (sex with an underage congressional page), Mel Reynolds (sex with an underage campaign volunteer), Bill Clinton (sex with a White House intern), and William Jefferson (caught taking a bribe in an FBI sting) should not be leading America into the future (and let's not forget Teddy Kennedy and Chappaquiddick, Robert Byrd's history in the KKK). I don't expect politicians to be perfect...they're humans. But the group of scumbags that are running America today are a disgrace to this great nation. Personally, I'm beginning to think we should throw them all out & start over. Oh, and I find it amusing that you bring up Bush's approval rating. Have you seen Congress' approval rating since your beloved Dems took control? Their approval ratings are even lower than Bush's.
  8. I agree, but there have been many cases where liberal fanatics have gone to great lengths to shut down and shut up conservatives who try to speak out and explain their beliefs. When conservatives can't even say what they believe without being shouted down with cries of "racist," "sexist," "bigot," "homophobe," etc., that's a few steps beyond "you know what I believe."
  9. I'm gonna have to agree to disagree with you about Coulter... No, it isn't...because the entire "phony soldiers" controversy was a scam started by Media Matters for America and perpetuated by Democrats in Congress. I listen to Rush just about every day, and I was listening to the show the day the "phony soldiers" comment was made. He was referring to anti-war activists who pretend to be combat veterans. The specific "phony soldier" in question washed out of boot camp, then joined a leftist anti-war group and tried to pass himself off as an Iraq War veteran (Jesse Macbeth). About the only reason the Media Matters report got the traction that it did was because Limbaugh didn't initially bring up that soldier during the show...the caller that brought up the topic during Limbaugh's program was referring to Limbaugh's "morning update" (where he talked specifically about Macbeth), a 2-minute segment that airs about an hour and a half before the start of his show. Then, when Limbaugh posted the show transcript on his site, Media Matters yelled & hollered because the transcript was edited...as it turns out, the caller changed the subject to something completely different, and that was what was edited out. If you don't listen to Limbaugh, Media Matters' tripe can sound pretty convincing, but the truth is that it's all a lie. I'm not a big fan of the Libertarian Party...which is where Ron Paul came from and should have stayed, imo. I started out as a "Bush Republican," but I think he (and the Republican party) have moved too far to the left on spending & the border. Personally, I like Duncan Hunter for the '08 election. The "private affair" argument has to be the #1 absolutely stupidest bone-headed argument I've ever heard (that's not a flame, it's my honest opinion). The president of the United States engages in sexual acts (multiple times) with a White House intern in the oval office while conducting official business (which he then lied about under oath), and you leap to his defense claiming it's a private matter? If he'd been a Republican, the libs would've run him out of Washington on a rail (whether he'd lied about it or not). He should've been thrown out of office for disgracing the office of the presidency...and that's without even including the fact that he perjured himself. The Left calmed down a lot during the Clinton years because many people on the Left think they're entitled to get what they want. When the Dems are in control, they're fine with things...but then they start throwing temper tantrums the as soon as someone from another party is elected (or even if someone in their own party isn't liberal enough for them, as was the case with Joe Leiberman). This is the problem: the Dems bitch and moan every time Bush nominates someone who isn't to the left of Che Guevara and think they can get away with it indefinitely. When the Dems won control of Congress last year, they made all sorts of promises about how they'd change things, but the truth is that they've done very little in the way of legislation to advance their agenda...and they've been so intent on pursuing meaningless investigations into the Bush administration in an attempt to keep them tied up that they aren't even taking care of the basic business of Congress. Ann Coulter is a capitalist...and there's nothing wrong with that. She is an author...she makes her living by selling books. I have to laugh every time I hear some crazy lib say "she's just in it for the money," because writing books is her career. Of course she's in it for the money. That doesn't mean she doesn't believe what she says. And the truth of the matter is that if people didn't agree with Coulter, there's no way she'd be as successful as she has been. As for the topic of impeachment, I'm not sure whether the Dems in Congress have officially tried to impeach Bush, but the Republicans kept the Cheney impeachment bill alive in an effort to embarrass the Dems. There has been talk about trying to impeach Bush, but I think it wasn't followed up on because the votes just aren't there. Oh, and it's also notable to mention that the Cheney impeachment bill was proposed by Dennis Kucinich, one of the wackiest liberals in Congress (if not one of the wackiest liberals of all time). Personally, I think it's pretty disingenuous to bring up radicalism on the right during the Clinton years & compare it to what's going on on the Left today. Even the right's radicalism back then doesn't compare to what's been going on today...and the majority of people on the right denounced those radicals back then. Impeaching President Clinton wasn't radical, because what Clinton did was a disgrace and an embarrassment to America...and then he turned it into a criminal matter by lying about it under oath. He deserved to be impeached, because when the President is engaging in sex acts with a subordinate while on the job, it's not a "private matter" anymore.
  10. First off, I didn't see anyone say that the right doesn't have radicals. That being said, of your list, Savage is definitely a radical...Pat Robertson definitely has a little radical in him. Ann Coulter uses biting wit to make her commentary actually be interesting. A lot of people don't like that because it's too blunt to be politically correct, but the United States could use a bit less political correctness and a bit more bluntness. Anyone who thinks she's anti-Semitic really doesn't understand what she was talking about. Rush Limbaugh is no radical, he's a conservative commentator who's been wildly successful. I've never seen an allegation of radicalism against Limbaugh (or most other conservative talk radio hosts) that couldn't be attributed to taking his words out of context. Conservatism itself (unlike what you seem to think) is not radical, it's the actions taken that make someone a radical. The left's radicalism started long before Bush became president. If you think it's Bush that makes lefties radical, just remember that leftist hippie wackos likely would have set much of America on fire by now if a real conservative had been elected president. Bush isn't the problem, the liberal sense of entitlement and tendency to throw temper tantrums when they don't get their way is the problem. For the most part, conservatives don't go out marching in the streets whenever they don't get their way. Liberals, on the other hand, brought us the term "professional protester."
  11. I don't know why LucasArts wouldn't want want to do games based on the original trilogy, unless someone in marketing is telling them it wouldn't sell (which I wouldn't buy for a second). I bought LSWII because LSW was such a fun game...and LSWII was even better (by a long shot). I think that LucasArts could definitely make some great games from the original trilogy if they wanted to - all they need to do is come up with some original missions to fill in some of the gaps. They could also involve some secondary characters to create other missions. The possibilities are pretty much endless, but I think that LucasArts has decided to focus their attention elsewhere for reasons I don't understand.
  12. I don't know why LucasArts wouldn't want want to do games based on the original trilogy, unless someone in marketing is telling them it wouldn't sell (which I wouldn't buy for a second). I bought LSWII because LSW was such a fun game...and LSWII was even better (by a long shot). I think that LucasArts could definitely make some great games from the original trilogy if they wanted to - all they need to do is come up with some original missions to fill in some of the gaps. They could also involve some secondary characters to create other missions. The possibilities are pretty much endless, but I think that LucasArts has decided to focus their attention elsewhere for reasons I don't understand.
  13. Personally, I get really tired of the "it happens on both sides" argument. Yes, there are wackos on both sides, but the truth is that the wackos on the left far outnumber the wackos on the right, both in the number of people and the level of virulence. Just recently, there was a conservative event called "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week." Over the course of the event, conservative speakers were shouted down and denounced as racist, . Many liberals today pay a lot of lip service to freedom of speech and tolerance of opposing views...until a conservative wants to speak his/her mind, and then all hell breaks loose. A good case in point is Colombia University: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Islamo-fascist dictator & supporter of terrorism was allowed to come and speak, while Jim Gilchrist of the Minutemen was driven off by protesters. And the truth of things is that the news media in the US leans left...even the Fox News Channel: yeah, they're berated by the Left as a conservative network, but a study by UCLA found that very few aspects of the US news media were actually conservative-leaning...most were liberal (and truthfully, the "conservative" media was usually more centrist than liberal).
  14. Well, the nice thing about video games is that they don't have to conform to the movies - and if they're putting in multiple endings, they could do it like they did with Jedi Knight, where one ending is "canon" as far as any sequels go, and the other endings are just extra. Personally, I think "greater" means that the apprentice could become powerful enough to destroy Vader - after all, it seems that pretty much every Sith ends up plotting to overthrow their master to take the power for themselves. As for putting some sort of light side ending in, it would have to come through a pretty well developed plot line to keep from being horribly lame. It's possible, but with someone as evil as the apprentice is supposed to be, I think it'd be pretty tough to pull off.
  15. I'm really looking forward to The Complete Saga, if only because I can get it for my DS (along with Force Unleashed). I wouldn't mind a LSW III, but I don't know what they'd base it on, except something out of the EU. But, then, they're coming out with Lego Indiana Jones & Lego Batman, so I think it's pretty likely that Traveler's Tales is finished with the Star Wars title and is moving on to other things. Considering how much fun LSW I & II were, though, I figure Lego Indy & Batman ought to be pretty good games.
×
×
  • Create New...