I said apathy is bad. People's lives are at stake. Jesus, think before you say things.

Didn't work like I thought it would....
www.geocities.com/txaggee2005/killemall.wav

<p><a href="http://www.geocities.com/txaggee2005/killemall.wav">I agree with
Marge...</a></p>

Bluto must be a democrat. Every democrat I know can't stand Rush because he pisses them off. What the funny thing I don't consider myself republican, but everything he says has been true. If sole facts are looked at, which is points out, and NO emotion on the issue is given then Rush has been right 9 times out of 10. He'll predict what will happen with democrats and then they do it. He'll add comentary on current issues & problems with both republicans and democrats and again he's correct in what they do. The thing that pisses Democrats off about Rush is he speaks so many facts they (D) can't make their arguements or their points because they would be based on something other than the ENTIRE truth.

But that's just my $.02

My $.02 on war:
Democrats have a problem with us "getting on other people's business", right? Well, I have news for you... if it weren't for one country getting in on another's business, we wouldn't be here!

We would've lost the American Revolution if it weren't for the French helping our happy rebelious asses... and you wouldn't have a choice in your political view.

I feel it is our right and responsibility to aid in freedom and remove tyranical powers throughout the world. People in Iraq have no choice on what to believe... and they can't even speak out about not having a voice. How would you democrats like to be forced to be republican? It's like that, only a million times worse.

So, yeah... it's our right as freedom fighters (what our nation is built on) to help other people achieve the freedom they are reaching for.

agreed. who ever said apathy is a bad thing?

I'm with you man

oh yeah...as for my take on the war: consider me the guy sitting in the back of class with my finger up my ass...i have no idea what's going on. i think it'd be hard to get a grip on what's reality and what's fudged reality. i don't watch tv, and my newspaper reading consists of the Daily Texan. do i care? not especially.

on a lighter note, i might be going to Whistler, B.C. this summer.

nah....i decided to try and get a job. i'm looking forward to it, though. that and micro-eco theory.

It was more a reference to the stance on the media focus in the US than the NRA stance in regards to going to see the movie... the book is actually really interesting.

Sorry, but I'd rather slit my wrists then watch or listen to Michael Moore. That's like me asking you to listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Fat Tire, did you end up staying in Carner's class?

Read "The Culture of Fear" by Barry Glassner. You most likely won't ever look at the media in the same sense again. Also, if you go to UT, go see Bowling for Columbine on the 20th in the Union, free showings at 6 and 9--but get there early to line up.

Part of the problem is the fucking media obsession with the situation in Iraq. I mean, what the hell...it's been headline news every night for 6 months! Bush will probably have to get Geraldo Rivera's permission before he attacks, and CNN will be covering it from Minute One, giving away all our strategy and troop positions.

heres the only problem i have, the fucking media wont ever tell us anything pertinent or if they do its piled under 3 tons of bullshit, so most of us cant tell what the hells goin on. I think the result of this is everybody saying "well, were just going to war for gas prices and to goose the economy and i think thats wrong." By the way, it those were the only reasons, im not so sure i would be to terribly opposed to the war (so long as that scumbag Saddam gets the fuck out and those people have a little more say in the direction of thier lives and country.)

Everyone has the right to talk about war. We're all going to be affected by it in some way. However, I do have a problem with people talking about war as though they've been there, and they know better than everyone else what the best course of action is. For the record, I'm not referring to anyone on this message board. People just really piss me off with their ill-informed bullshit sometimes. Saddam Hussein has had every necessary chance to get himself and his country out of the line of fire, and he has repeatedly ignored these opportunities. This is not a matter of opinion. Something must be done to stop this psychopathic lunatic, and we've been down the "let's sit down and talk about this" road many times in the past, to no avail. The man does not understand negotiations. If we haven't learned that over the past decade and a half, then we're far worse off than we think.

Dude, you don't have to have served in the military to "earn" the right to talk about war. That's gotta be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Lets not talk about war....if you have served then thats fien but if you havent....dont talk

On a different note:

The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior (1993) reported that one-third of men and one-quarter of women admit having at least one extramarital sexual experience.

That's just plain disturbing.

Headradio: The difference being (1) nobody argues helping people is the sole cause for going to war (albiet, it's a excellent result of going to war) whereas some people are arguing that the only reason we're going to war is for oil (which is ignorant).

everyone knows we're going to fight because we care so much about the iraqi people that we can't stand to see them suffer anymore.

Anyone who thinks we're going to fight this war for oil is a brainwashed moron. That's like saying we fought in WWII because we wanted to control the world's supply of Bratwurst and German beer.

Haha, yeah, about 20 profs and grad students. Probably all from the philosophy department.

http://www.whatisplanb.com/archive/2003_02/2003-02-03-047_small.jpg

So yes, there you go--it's not just UT students interested in protesting.

Bosnia, in my opinion was a needed action. Haiti and Somalia were not. Clinton is responsible for the dead soldiers but Carter is responsible for the pull-out as well as the problem we're having with North Korea blackmailing us for more aid because he's such a pussy he gets the US into terrible peace-talk precedents which result in the shit we're mired in now. And Europe decides to give the man a Nobel Peace Prize. Geez. Bush Sr. couldn't go into Iraq, though, the press went crazy on him after the "Highway of Death" bullshit and the coalition wouldn't support troops invading Baghdad. But, I guess he should've just taken the bad press and gone in anyway(especially considering the shit we're dealing with now AND he lost the election). So I don't totally blame him for not going in (hindsight is 20/20).

But, regardless of where I stand on the Iraq issue (pro-war) I do totally agree with Bluto on the fact that these people didn't do shit when Clinton went into Bosnia, Somolia, and Haiti but NOW they have a problem when Bush wants to take care of a much larger threat than the other three COMBINED. Hell, they had no problem with Clinton on the other three actions and they even started voicing protest when we went into Afghanistan for God's sake. It is very hypocritical and partisian.