• Profile:
  • Joined: Tuesday, March 18, 2008
  • Last Visit: 2010-12-23T17:35:36Z
  • Statistics
  • Number of Posts: 257 [0.06% of all post / 0.06 posts per day]
  • Thanks Given: 0
  • Thanks Received: 0
  • Thanked Posts: 0
  • Community Reputation Received:
    50.25% (Neutral)
Last 10 Posts
 View All Posts by User

 I still think COD5 will be a decent game since it is exploring new content (Pacific)...it's on the same engine as COD4, so i'm pretty sure it will still own :)

 I was just browsing IGN when I came accross this link:


They have a page for COD6 on the PC, xbox 360, and ps3 (most likely Wii too, but I couldn't find it). Not much mentioned about the game except:

"The sixth entry in the Call of Duty franchise, this next game brings back developer Infinity Ward as the general in command."

I assume it will come out next year in Nov/Dec like most COD games.

Well... with the new iPhone looming and my phone contract about to expire next month, I began looking around for potential phones. I'm with Att, and have narrowed it down to the LG Vu and the new 3G iPhone.

I've been doing some research (for a few days now), and havn't been swayed either way. I went into the Att store to look at them both (old iPhone in place of the newer one), and still, can't decide. While the LG Vu is more of a cell phone (with incredible movie/tv playback) and the iPhone is more of a multimedia package, I would be happy with either one!

Anyone have any suggestions, comments, personal experience, or anything else that could help??? 

Next year Intel is rolling out their 32nm procs.. 😞 so it won't be running with that big dog ;)

Super ants!!! Its like a movie coming true.... its only a matter of time before they migrate to the pentagon and our nation is open to any enemy threat because the ants will be eating through our defense systems!!! DAM YOU ANTS!

Unfortunately, I don't have time to continue the discussion on my end until Friday (finals end then)... its taking too much time out of my studying to formulate responses :)

However, a few comments:

There are more radical islamic individuals than christian radicals.. don't ask me for a number... but I can gurantee you that is true.

Israel's foreign policy is based on RE-ACTIVE response... no proactive. So those "innocent buildings" they bomb are in response to being attacked by the individuals they are attacking. Plus, there are innocents on all sides, I don't see how that is relavent. Think of it like this: Radical muslims target ALL jews, americans, etc... whereas Israel targets (to the best as it can) the groups that physically wage war or support those that wage war on them (thus, not innocent).

Good point on the other nations having internal struggles.. but I don't see Lebanon as a truly christian nation. You're right.. terrorism is relative.. and both sides are considered terrorists... but I don't see how that justifies anything than having a circular argument... WE STILL CALL THEM TERRORISTS!!!! Even if they do the same to us, they still want to kill us (and in many cases, likewise). The majority of American policy and Israeli policy in the last couple decades has been reactive policy (except for Iraq, that was definately proactive).

I never insinuated this : "It's rather absurd when a member of Hamas says he hopes Obama will win the election, and then the American fear-mongers insinuate that means that Obama is somehow tied in with Islamic fundamentalism." My concern was in the need to question  (at least what I consider a logical need) ourselves due to the beliefs carried by some radical islamists.

I googled those links, didn't have time to find sources... but here is one thing.. ALL NEWS IS BIASED. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/18/mccain-camp-uses-obamas-hamas-compliment-as-fundraising-fuel/ Another one... of course its fox.. therefore it must be biased.. right? The fact is, the Hamas support exists... i'm not saying Obama is a terrorist... i'm simply pointing out the fact that you are agreeing with one if agree with those statements... that also isn't a bad thing, just something worth thinking about.. which is what I have been saying all along.

I don't like Bush... and I don't see how Bush's grandfather helping the [censored]s has anything to do with him... i'm not talking about Obama's grandfather.. i'm talking about a radical muslim who is trying to both kill americans and jews (right now, as we speak) supporting a presidential candidate... not history.

And I don't think I said anything that would say this " Willard mate, you view the entire Muslim world as impoverist and desperate." I've only really been referring to Radical Islam. Hell, a lot of those countries governments are filthy rich, but at the same time, how many of those countries are "First World"...? You say there are some developed countries... which ones? And how many are undeveloped? I have a feeling the majority are not first world countries... I'm not sure why thats relavent either. I'm focussing my current discussion on one specific issue on a specific set of comments. Like I said, if I busted out my history book, ok, almost every large culture massacred people... but i'm not talking about the past. There are other things going on in the world today, sure, but do you really think more money, time, effort, and people are going into terrorist groups OTHER than radical islam? I would disagree if you do.

Also, i'm not a Republican... :(

Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist... but not in the same boat as radical muslims... they have camps where they train the young and old to kill people. Not to mention radical muslim groups are supported by almost every country in the middle east.

Obama obviously doesn't support terrorism... however, I have a grudge against those crazy [censored]s who insist on shooting at my family in Israel and blowing up buildings left and right in an attempt to annihilate all Jews and ultimately, all Americans. Sorry if i'm a bit pissed off... but considering their logic is f*cked up as it is (in most people's minds.... would you run around with a bomb on your back into a school? or a bus? and then think you will be rewarded?) I have trouble agreeing or believing that whay they say is true or beneficial to anyone but themselves. You have crazy people everywhere... but when those people get endorsed and are given enough weapons to support an Army (which is a legitimate comparison), their influence worries me.

There are countless groups of these people... not one crazy guy... and these individuals are literally willing to die for their beliefs...and they hold power in many countries in the middle east (with influence spreading)... do you agree with their beliefs and ideas? Will you side with radical islam on political, social, and economic ideologies? I definately do not, and thus, I QUESTION obama's support from some radical islamic groups... it isn't the deciding factor in my mind, but again, as I said, its something that should AT LEAST make you think. If reverend wright is getting so much attention (which I believe tells us someting about Obama), then so should this.


Fseven, you posted when I was posting...

 Ya, christian terrorist (like any terrorist) are a threat.. but tell me, in what country to chrisitan terrorists walk around with AK-47s in the streets, or shoot missiles at other countries... or walk around blowing themselves up every week... whose only goal is to kill innocent people, something radical muslims are fairly successful at. Its definately not the same. Radical islam has more governmental support and because of it, has more funding and weapons.





I'll look for more when I get the chance.

"In terms of Obama not being 'experienced enough', I say bollocks. Back in 2002 before he was even a Senator (but was a candidate for Senator), he was speaking out against the Iraq War vehemently while Clinton and McCain were in the Senate voting to approve the use of force in Iraq. Obama had the insight to oppose the war from the start so the insinuation that wisdom comes with job experience is a farce. It certainly didn't worked for McCain and Clinton. "

I don't see how that makes him experienced... his "insight" and "wisdom" opposed popular belief at the time... no one knew how it would turn out. I personally supported going into Iraq, but definately was/am against us staying in the fashion we are. The task was handled very poorly. Just because Obama had an opinion doesn't mean he knew the war would come crashing down and become a 'negative' war in American's eyes... I diagree in the attempt ignore the link between  job experience with wisdom... Also, it depends on whether you agree with being in Iraq or not. For me (since I support it), its not big deal, and since Obama wasn't in congress or any official position, I can't comment on his decision since he didn't make one. However, the fact that clinton and mccain voted for the war, since it falls in line with my opinion, is a plus.

Also, the decision one would make in and out of congress are probably very different. Its easy to have an opinion when your sitting on the sidelines...

Savage Animal wrote:

Muslims are not an enemy of the state. Just as there are radical Muslims there are radical Christians and every other creed known to man. 

Radical christians don't go out blowing up planes and buildings in western and judaic countries... radical muslims do. I consider them an enemy of the state. While Obama obviously isn't a radical muslim, the fact that radical muslims SUPPORT his run for candidacy worries me... plus, I disagree with most of the dem's policies anyway :)

As usual... nice system! Great paintjob.

Good luck guys.

Laggerzero wrote:

And with that said is our whole problem. Obama is too young for this kind of a job. He has only one term in the senate and THAT IS IT. Just because someone touts change these days makes them popular. We need to get our heads straight or our country will soon be overrun with Mexicans and then they will be running the show.

Lol... true dat :)