SOCL

Right now my trip to London may actually be off. Hate to have planned this whole thing and not said something earlier, but the Army seems to have other plans for me and I may be going to Fort Knox for training on the road to being commissioned an officer. Will update as time goes on. Sorry.

Any Thrawn? Even just a passing mention?

And I, the heathen, believe that no one can be Bond by Daniel Craig despite being a fan of Connery and Bronson.

I wasn't at all impressed with any of the recent ones, but Casino Royale goes back to a darker, more realistic Bond from the Fleming novels. This is a human Bond and not the robot-like, unemotional superhuman typical of all most, if not all the previous movies. Daniel Craig's Bond bleeds (I remember seeing him bleed and shouting, in the airport, "Bond bleeds! And it's red!"), messes up, and isn't always right in his assumptions. Further, his clothing actually gets messed up, his accidents actually hurt him, and he doesn't always get himself out of a bind. Rob, I hate action flicks because most of them lack an actual plot, but this is by far the best action movie I have ever seen.

Got Casino Royale on DVD recently to keep me entertained while flying. Absolutely awesome movie. Then, as I was walking away from a Thai restaurant near my university, I saw that the local theater is still playing it! I'd never seen it on the big screen and really want to... So tonight, at midnight, I will see Casion Royale for the fourth time, but this time on the great silver screen.

Welcome to the site, Moribundus! English isn't your native language? You could have fooled me! It's quite good. And no worries, no one will beat you at all, especially since we have to put up native speakers who can only a grunt a few words correctly on a good day. When you say you're going to take care of the fact that there's no Rebellion 2, do you mean you're going to design a conversion?

I know that feeling. It's supposed to cool off here, down into the 50's Fahrenheit, which is bad (especially since today was in the 80's Fahrenheit). No more snow, luckily, but the 50's a rather a bad place here since that's when the flu starts to spread a lot because people think it's warm, but it's not quite warm enough to go out without a coat or a sweater. Most people survive the 50's alright, but I always catch something. I mean, I've been sick three times in just these past two months! I can't wait until it warms up again.

***groan*** Did you have to Eagle? What? This sounds amusing. Please explain.

I also seem to remember the Iranians seizing British personnel in 2004 and that was resolved rather peaceably. Still this matter concerns because, as budious pointed out, kidnappings have been flashpoints for war. Then again, the Iranians tried this same sort of thing at the embassy in London and then at the American and British embassies in Tehran, and still war didn't result...

It's a Catch-22 if one has ever existed. I need nukes to defend myself against the guys who have nukes because I have nukes.

Especially if the US gives some mini-nukes to Israel and have them nuke Iran. No need. They have their own nukes without our help.

It probably is, but whose going to fight it? You going to volunteer to enlist Rob? Too many troops pinned down in Iraq and not prepared for another conflict-action. I believe war is avoidable.

Fifteen members of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines were taken into custody earlier today by the Iranian Navy for what Iran says was crossing illegally into Iranian territorial waters. I must say, if this had happened to U.S. service-personnel, it would have been the flash point for war. I certainly hope it doesn't come to that, but, for the love of God, we know these fellows weren't in Iranian waters--UK and US personnel on site witnessed the entire thing as it happened! Iran needs to return these fellows at once.

It has nothing to do with your political opinion, budious. I would never lock a topic over political opinion, and I believe you know as well as I do that the elevator comment had nothing to do with my warning. You mentioned that what you type is "like" standing in an elevator and pressing all the buttons because it "pisses everyone off." Action that is made in order to intentionally provoke anger or annoyance is considered flaming, budious. I took what you said at face value. I am merely asking you to refrain from, as you put it yourself, purposefully pissing users off.

Which, if you're keep doing, can be considered flaming, budious, which entails consequences. In any event, something I don't quite understand is why being concerned for the environment is increasingly become a "bad thing." Then again, this might have a lot to do with the politicization of the environment so that what one party rallies around, the other party must, out of political spite, rally against. That may be the reason and, I hope, is the only reason. I can't see why any decent, educated person would think it alright to destroy the earth's natural environments. It has nothing to do with global warming, either, just with the fact that it's a good idea to conserve and preserve the environment. It's the only one we have, and when it's gone, we won't have another one. Well, that's the way I see it. Politically, nothing drastic will likely be done, but can't everyone agree that we should progress towards helping the environment? I know there will be people who will say "No", if only out of spite, so take it as utterly rhetorical. Oh, and Jahled, you are quite right. No long hair or smoking dope here. And, like you, I too spend my spare time watching the animals. Otters, I agree, are fun, but I personally find the Red Pandas more amusing. They always seem on the verge of falling from great heights to their deaths, but still somehow always manage to get out of it safely. One day you should come see the National Zoo, and I'll go see the London Zoo sometime, too.

I am inclined to agree with my British brother.

I feel bad for the polar bears that, for the very first time in recorded history, are actually drowning because the space between ice-islands have become to large to traverse. Sure, polar bears have drowned before, but polar bears are damn good swimmers. They are drowning because the warming of the earth is melting the Arctic ice. I'll feel really rotten when in 2010 there is no summer ice at the North Pole. Plus, I'll likely have to buy my beach house in the Appalachian Mountains.

Hah! I'm Central Florida, fools! Really? Ironic because so am I... Damn snow, ice, and sleet have canceled all flights to DC and east coast airports north of there, and the next flights to DC will only be available on Tuesday. So I have to fly to Norfolk and be picked up, three hours to the south of DC.

On holiday in Florida. Spent the week at the Panhandle at a $2-million house where the backyard was literally a private beach. My high school friend knows many wealthy friends. Very fantastic. I am not looking forward to going back to cold DC tomorrow.

I can't say I agree with you, budious, but to each his own. In any event, though, I find this obsession with "flip-flopping" being total rubbish. I have footage of then-Governor Bush in a political debate with then-Vice President Gore where he says repeatedly that he does not believe in using the military for nation-building. He then goes on to say he would not invade another country for the sake of nation-building. Flip-flopping? By the useless definition most people seem obsessed with, yes. Personally, I call it "changing ones mind based on external circumstances," but that's just me. Certainly I've kept the same policy and opinion since I was five years old, who hasn't? It's very important for me to stay the course forever and ever and ever, even after it doesn't seem logical to stay of the same opinion. For instance, I was in favor of fighting Japan in World War II, even after they surrendered. We mustn't back down, never--fight until there's nothing left to fight. And, yes, I'm being sarcastic. The "flip-flopping" reason I find absolutely nonsensical and without reason. Every politician in history has "flip-flopped" (also known as "changing opinion") because of the circumstances at hand. Again, I find this another rubbish ad hominem argument that has no place in politics.

Well if you say so... I was feeling deja vu myself. Well, I think it's pretty well known I am not at all on the right of the general political center, and certainly not even close to the right of the American political center. In truth, I would be surprised if most people didn't know I have tendencies which go so far to the left they even scare me at times. Hillary can be something of a liability, but she was the true power behind the administration of President Clinton, in which case I look forward to a third term of Clintonian policies. There are those who disagree with me, but I liked the economy and jobs and environment and... as they were before the current administration. Barack Obama I view especially favorably because he brings new blood to American politics. There is the matter of a lack of experience, but I see this more as a lack of cynicism and the inherent corruption of federal politics. Everyone has a skeleton or two (or more!) in their closet, but the worst Mr. Obama has was a parking ticket he forgot to pay, which he did with the accumulated interest just today. The fact he is a minority helps a lot, too, since I and the rest of the minority community have been waiting for someone to throw our support behind. Whether this be an ethnic minority (such as in Mr. Obama's case) or a more general social minority (as in the case of Ms. Clinton), I view this as progressive and very favorable. Mr. Guiliani is a conservative person I can agree with. He has nothing against the homosexual community and is an outstanding financier, as well as a proven education reformer. If only for the sake of the children, I would gladly see Mr. Guiliani sitting in the Oval Office. I do have some things I do not agree with him on, but that's just petty conservative versus leftist rubbish, which I can set aside as I don't even get to elect anyone! The electoral college does. Mr. McCain is the man I have wanted in office since before 2000, and if it wasn't for the name "Bush", I'm quite certain he would be President at this very moment. In any event, the man is humble and doesn't stoop to the level most Republicans do of using ad hominem arguments against their opponents. Indeed, whenever someone doesn't agree with them, he just shrugs and doesn't take it personally. This I find remarkably great! This isn't a man who is going to get all hot and bothered over anything, and if he does, he will keep it to himself so as to convey calm and order to the public. Further, Mr. McCain, I believe, is quite capable of keeping American foreign policy in the green when it comes to international relations, while at the same time preserving American interests abroad. Granted, the "interests abroad" does begin to encroach into that territory we all love to discuss so much (that three letter word that starts with a "w" and ends with "-ar"), but if I had to choose someone to be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces (presidency aside), it would be him. The man was a POW in the Vietnam War for goodness sake--he knows what it means to fight a war and to be forced against the enemy first hand. Again, though, he's for keeping the war going, which is something that I find disturbing, but to each his own because I can't do much about that expect elect my Congressional Representative and Senators, and I suppose, in theory, my President. Even so, if we have to remain engaged in Iraq, then I would much rather have John McCain at the helm than anyone else. But those are only my two cents.

Makes sense. Look at how China (PRC) has risen from shunned nobody on the world stage to being the friend everyone wants to have. Not that I'm comparing or mean to seem to be comparing the PRC to space aliens; rather, a relative stranger to the world-stage appears as a player and everyone wants a piece.

...to some lucky SOB. LUCKY?! To spend that much?! I'd say some crazy SOB!

No personal issue with Hillary. I much more prefer Mr. Obama. Wouldn't be hurt if Guiliani (sp?) won. I only disagree with McCain on the war policy. That's why I'm thrilled about the 2008 Presidential Elections! Unlike past elections where I had to choose between the better of the two idiots, this time around I get to choose from the better of some of the best candidates the US has had in many decades! At least, that's how I see it. I'll certainly end up choosing one to vote on, but I won't be hurt if the person I choose doesn't win, as long as whoever wins is among the list I just typed. Anyone else...well, either I don't know them or their political view is so far to the right it scares me.