SOCL

Ahh ... damn Hmm, did you download any other spyware removal tools? Do they work? To tell you the truth, ever since I uninstalled all of my spyware-removing, virus-scanning rubbish, everything has been working better. Not as good as it used to before my idiot friend from grade-school sent me a link to his site which subsequentally nearly killed my computer (and is, incidentally, the day--in fact, the minutes, this all started), but better. I uninstalled AdAware and will try later. I've nearly given up, to tell you the truth, and have merely got used to having stuff pop up and having to close it down.

You do realize that the TIE crashed into the bridge of a different Star Destroyer and not the Executor, right? Also, the whole command tower does not make up the whole bridge...

Okay, one slight problem. Everytime I try to use AdAware, I get a "Fatal System Error" blue-screen message.

Yeah. As soon as I'm bored, I'll just out-right ban his IP address and get the whole nonsense over with.

Speaking of crap, I have a lot of spyware and popups and such on my computer and need to find the best remover of such and virus scan available. Suggestions are MORE than welcome!

NPR/BBC America predict that the current trend in media-based politics will lead to more and more attack-ad style political battles like the ones we saw recently. That the amount of money spent on campaigns will eventually match that which is used in the two years between elections. It's ridiculous, and that is why I am in favor of federal-based campaign funds...and nothing else. This doesn't mean I want more taxes, on the contrary, I say campaign funds should come from tax dollars because of the stigma it carries and, thus, very few tax dollars will actually be used to fund campaigns. I am, personally, opposed to the electoral college, but I can see the view Tex has about states not having equal say. Then again, that all depends on your view concerning state rights, an stance traditionally held by Republicans and conservatives in general (and I don't mean the current strain of conservatives in the government, as they, in my opinion, do not represent true conservative ideas). In any event, I do not see a problem with taking out the electoral college. In my opinion, the presidential election should be a voter-wide popular election. State representation and equality and such comes in the Congress, hence why the Senate has two seats per state and the House is divided by population. I say, make the presidential election direct-democracy, but then again, in a country the size of the USA, that's a little more difficult to do that traditional European-sized nations. As for the coaltions and nothing getting done, I beg to differ, Tex. As Jahled stated and as my friends in Germany and many other Parliament-run nations will atest to, a functioning government does it exist, it is merely different from our own. I, personally, do not believe our current government gets much of anything accomplished in the way of truly helping the common person, but rather tries too much to establish federal policy and such. What I have studied of American history seems to point to the USA's federal government becoming more and more elitest with officials becoming more and more seperated from the common folk. But maybe that's just me.

I am still not sure what you're talking about. Oh, and please do not double (or triple) post. Just hit the edit button and add more to your last post, please, unless someone else has replied. Thanks.

There are Bond novels? I never knew...and I work in a bookstore.

tehgrandadmiral, perhaps you could be more specific about all of this, and not just for those who aren't familiar with what you're talking about. Everything you've posted so far a bit on the cryptic and vague side. How about some background, mate?

Thank you for explaining that, JediHunter, despite the fact you seem to dislike the idea of defending me...

Roger, but that's how system works now. How do you think it worked when there was Whig and Democrat? She's describing it the way it works, but using today's parties, not variables. Forget it.

Wow, your only five years my senior, college junior! I'm still a sophmore, but everyone thinks I'm a senior for some reason. (Even some of them who have known me for my full two years in High School) I don't, kid. I thought you were Freshman or in 8th grade. And I'm not only five years your senior, I just happen to be back a bit because of the transfer. I'll likely catch up with my peers over the summer.

Actually they could be elected Tofu; that they can't is a misconception. I think it's more along the lines of "they likely won't". In any event the college is set up for a two party system, so 1 and 2 are variables, not specifically Democrat or Republican. In any event, I agree that a third or fourth or so forth parties would likely be better, with coalitions of parties working together--it would moderate politics in this country considerably and keep away the sort of polarization that has plagued politics this last decade or so. I agree with Evaders in voting Libertarian, and more especially in people saying that voting for them (or any "third party", for that matter) is "throwing away your vote." People say the same thing about the Green Party concerning Democratic votes. Interesting, though, because I was watching the numbers this election and, it seemed to me, the number of people voting for independents in general seems to be on the rise, with the election of Lieberman as a pseudo-Demcrat and reelection of Bernie Sanders as a pseudo-Democrat (really a declared Socialist) as some of the best examples of rising third parties. Studying politics, it seems to me that eventually the USA will become like most of the rest of the world, with especial interest in the United Kingdom and Germany, namely that "third parties" will rise to near, if not totally equal status as the current Republican-Democratic oligarchy. Perhaps, sometime soon, enough third parties will come to prominence that we'll have coalition of parties (as I stated before). One can always dream, no? Also of interest is the fact that the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives will, for at least the next two years, be a very important position within the government, more so than it has been quite some time. Perhaps what we're seeing is the eventual transformation of the Speaker into a sort of Prime Minister... It's an idea I heard around campus.

Who? Rumsfeld, Bush, Lieberman, or McCain? Quite a few names have been mentioned... On a related note, Senator George Allen just conceded to James Webb in Virginia, which means that the U.S. Senate is now controlled by a majority, albeit small, of Democrats, 50 to 49. Had it been 50-50, the Senate still would have been in favour of the Republicans because, assuming votes went with political affiliation, the Vice President, a Republican, would cast a single tie-breaking vote. In this situation, the Democrats have a small majority in the Senate and, again assuming everyone votes according to party affiliation, the Vice President will not any vote at all. Well, at least the elections are over and we won't have a repeat of that God-awful time following the 2000 Presidential elections and the infamous Florida recount. Now Americans have some peace... ...for a few months before the 2008 Presidential election nonsense starts up.

I agree, JediHunter, the Bond series has lost much of its luster of the Cold War, and no Bond movie will ever be as good as GoldFinger. Goldeneye wasn't so bad, in fact, rather good, but the other recent ones...eh. Besides, supposedly Casino Royale is supposed to depict the training of a new 007, which implies that the name "James Bond" is an assumed identity that all agents 007 assume, rather than the real name. In other words, it seems that it was never meant that we were to assume that the changing faces of Bond were meant to be the same Bond... Would be interesting to see two a former Bond come into one of the new movies--everyone's been talking about Connery coming back--but then, that's been the rumour for years and years and years now...

Thank you. Heh. Yes, Josh does stick out, but then again, his primary role is chief of the barbarin horde. Since no barbarians were needed at that moment, he decided to be a Roman. Notice--and this is something insignificent--the shoes he's wearing: they're black compared to the standard brown, and, you can't tell, but they're close toed. They are, in fact, barbarian shoes, not Roman caligae, something he got a good beating over later when we were in formation by the Primus Pilus, the fellow with the red, feathered crest, red cloak, and golden cuirass.

Why thank you! I was wondering if anyone had noticed.

Shaun of the Dead is fantastic. I am looking forward to seeing the new Jimmy Bond movie, Casino Royale. Something about this new Bond that I prefer over the others. Perhaps it's because he reminds me of Kevin McKidd, the fellow who played Lucius Vorenus in HBO/BBC's ROME. Did anyone see Miami Vice over the summer? I wanted to, but never got the chance. And how about that new Brad Pitt movie? Seems Syriana-like.

Speaking of academics, I just registered for classes for next semester. I normally get all the classes I want (not that I'm spoiled or anything... ), but because of my transfer, I am still classified as a sophomore; had I remained at my old university (there's a laugh!), I would be going into my first semester of my senior year... In any event, I was able to get the following classes of interest: Art History 311 Design of Cities: Rome History 300 Historical Methods and Studies of Urban and Suburban America I have other classes, of course, but those are of interest. Also, I am waiting responses on getting into: Art History 420 Augustan Era Roman Art History 635 Alexander the Great The latter-most is a graduate course. Just thought I'd share...

Okay, but there was no need to post a thread with an apology.

Oh, hush. I wasn't in it either.

I don't quite know what it means to vote "Democratics". Bernie Sanders, one of the independents, is a socialist who has never voted with Republicans and will continue voting with Democrats because they are the closest to the left. In any event, he's not a Senator, but a Congressman. As for Lieberman, he will likely be as much a thorn in Democrats' sides as McCain is to Republicans. I don't think anyone on either side is particularly worried about him. Only one independent in the Senate--Lieberman.

Welcome to the forums, Judicatorsir. Good to see some adamant fans about. Be sure to post your work as soon as you have it available so that we may all drool over it.

Indeed. In any case, it seems the House will be led by the Democratic majority, while the Senate is still up in the air. The Montana vote has gone to the Democrats, which leaves Virginia. Damn Virginia. Yes, it was my fault--I happen to live in that state. Truly, though, James Webb one the seat, even if only by a little (7,000 votes), but state law allows for George Allen to call for a recall of the votes...which could take weeks... I understand why it's in place, but according to everything I have read, the numbers are about as accurate as they're going to be...and truly, it's rather difficult to accidentally miscount 7,000 votes. In any case, I predict Webb will likely gain the seat, meaning another seat for Democrats in the Senate, meaning... Meaning that the Democrats will have a majority in both houses of Congress, albeit by one seat in the Senate. In any event, either nothing is going to get done, or perhaps this great nation will finally end its petty squabling and return to some sort of cohesive middle ground where we can all talk to each rather than yell. Not quite a world conflict, but it directly relates as we will likely see soon enough. By that I mean that the results of the Baker report on the progress and status of the conflict in Iraq will be coming out soon, and by all indications, it isn't quite favourable to the war or current Administration policies. Indeed, President Bush said a few weeks ago that the committee had completed its report, but he did not want to release the findings as he worried it would "influence the elections"... Now, unless things have changed in the last million years of human evolution (i.e. greed), I don't think he would have withheld the findings unless it was negative for the GOP/Republican Party. It's quite possible, in fact, that the recent elections and all the subsequent backlash it will cause (e.g. Rumsfeld resigns, Baker report, etc) may begin the process of withdrawing forces from Iraq. And my British friends more knowledgable about this may correct me, but didn't the Chief of Staff of the British Army (or Armed Forces?) speak out against the policy in Iraq and say something along the lines that he desired for a British withdrawal from Iraq? Further, didn't PM Tony Blair agree with him? At least, that's what the BBC reported a month or so back. I do not believe that even President Bush's unilateral policy will hold without the USA's strongest ally. I could be wrong, I have been before, but this is just an (educated) guess.

On a related topic, CNN just reported that President Bush during a news conference said that Donald Rumsfeld (interesting timing on my part!) will be resigning as Secretary of Defense. Can't say I'm unhappy....