atinymonkey

I have no idea what Cerle Effects are, where did you find the term?

The motives for political commentary are separate from the need to use the absolute truth. Sometimes exaggeration is the best method of making a point. Satire is the key to effective political commentary. The point about the onion is it uses whatever facts it feels fit to use to emphasize political points, as does Michael Moore. You asked why Moore doesn't use the absolute truth, the onion is the answer. Pop culture demands satire for the wide audience, not in depth political commentary. Perhaps Moores goal is just to get people to question what the Government tells them. That, if it is true, is laudable.

I don't vote for whomever would put me in a better personal situation. I vote for the party that has the best political and socioeconomic track record. I don't listen to what the spokespuppet churns out, as it's mostly misrepresentation and flexible promises. If a party has had the same effective solutions, they show consistance. If the party change policy every 4 weeks, they are not worth any attention. In short I pick the person I vote for based on who best sorted out the problems we have at the moment, in the past.

> There is an international private society (of Oil Tycoons and Businessmen). its membership included rogue intelligence officers (George Bush snr ex CIA head), international crime organisations (Enron and Bush Jnr ), and powerful business moguls (Skull and Bones society)" >the society's founding creed declared peace was dangerous (politically and economically, it is). its members believed constant controlled global tension served the interests of all (mainly in protecting foreign investment). it prevented complacency. it maintained vigilance. it built national identity. and most of all it made them money, a good deal of money (Hey, everyone needs Oil) >its an election year. the president is down on polls (No wars, and a budget defecit thank to tax break for the super rich). >the society orders a shooting down of an American plane near New York, killing about 200 people. and framing a Palestinian liberation organisation" (Read, tragic event taken over to motivate political ambition) >mossads deputy director of operation is a member of the society (er, probably not). he's been fighting for Israel all his life, but got angry at the possible peace deal and land negotiations" (that’s probably true for some of Mossad, but irrelevant) >the person who ran KGB is also member of the society. he’s watched the Russian economy go into ground. military equipment rusting. KGB laughing stock of the Intel community"(Ah, Mr Vladimir Putin, welcome to the story) >the president has no choice but to bomb the training camps. (to secure Daddies oil, and his inheritance) >president re-elected. (Cause he, like, saved us from Terror Nazis) >a senior member of the American gov is a member of the society, and is into arms manufacturing. (Arms, Oil, it’s all drawing on the same funds) >President pushed forward the Missile shield which is going to cost a lot of money (billions shelled out for the Iraq occupation) >Start of a new international arms race, money made across the world (Start of a new international Police force, kickbacks in reconstruction grants, foreign investment and Oil) >The Palestinian liberation org. his London Heathrow killing 36 people" (Hmmm, fantasy but Spain had this happen) >Middle east peace plan grounded to a halt (Pah, it’s never started)

I suppose I see him more as a satirist. He uses random facts to lead you down a train of thought, very rarely does he make direct accusations. In that respect he is using politicians tools against them, as very little he says is not true. A lot of what he implies is not true, but you can't sue over implications. I would have thought that the US would be immensely proud to have one of the major global political satirists. We used to have a whole army of satirists, but the UK has run dry of them recently. Ah well.

You were asked if you were off topic. I confirmed that you were, when you decided to redefine the thread topic. It's common courtesy to respect the creator of the thread while posting in the thread they have created. There are 4 other threads that discuss the digression your currently following, there is not point repeating the debate here. I'm not asking you for much, I'm asking you to stay on topic.

Happily, having created the thread, I can confirm you are off topic. The point isn't individual rights, but the right of one individual to dictate morals (Mr Bush Jnr). Back. On. Topic.

I don't have one, this is what I want to have.

What about Murphy's law?

Stupid spellcheck, I'll kill you!

I'm not sure it is correctly defined as Physiological or Genetic tbh. It could be either or a combination of both. But, as it's been said, it's not important what defines a person but how they are accepted.

You mean Mel Gibsons 84 year old loony father. Mr Gibson has not said anything about the subject. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/gibson.asp I doubt he really does deny it. Just as I doubt he thinks the World Trade Center was blown up via remote control.

An 'earthquake storm'? Oh Jesus no, not twice in one week.

I voted no. The idea was fine, as a joke thread, but it was applied poorly. YT obviously made it not worth participating in, with the gibbering commentary. Hey ho, that's what you get for planning comedy.

Use of acronymous language is not 'net slang'.

There is no such thing as net slang. There is such a thing as teenagers who can't spell all posting in one place. The only place 'net slang' could be used is during online games where typing speed is a factor.

The hint is that if it's in the challange thread, it should be a challange. This should be in GD.

You already have a thread about this:- http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5254 Plus, there are threads about this previous to you joining:- http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3064

Honestly, the atmosphere in HL2 is just completly different. It's not a good comparison because it's horror genre against action genre. But if you get one of the movies, HL2 looks stunning. The graphics in HL2 only look a bit average if you see them in screenshots, in the movies you can see that everything (furniture to building walls and cars) can be blown up, moved, distorted or picked up to use as a weapon. It has tripods that are massive enemys (taller than the buildings), cars you can drive and huge levels. It just looks like a great game.

Yes, to get back to the original context of the thread. Repression of the formal expression of love can't be a good thing.

Perhaps if you knew what rights were afforded to a person through marriage, this discussion would be cut shorter. For instance, preferential mortgages/loans and tax breaks are available as well as the increased ability to adopt children.

Mr and Mrs Walmart bought the ASDA chain a while back. They are slowly rebranding it.