random guy

I just use the default sensitivity most of the time - and most of the time the default sensitivity is set pretty similar to other games, so I guess that's my standard.

Yeah, that guy made portable Atari 2600s as well (if it is the same guy). He must be pretty good at electronics, to turn an entire console into a hanheld.

That's very true, especially considering that he's become a "dirty word" to republicans because of right-wing propaganda.

IT'S ALIIIIIVE!!!

That doesn't really make much sense... new casters don't have that much power. Read this, it's from http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-D...renheit-911.htm. This guy isn't a republican or democrat, he is an indepedant who voted for Nader in the 2000 elections, just like Moore did. I take everything Moore says with a grain of salt just like I take whatever Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Rush Limbaugh say. All of that may indeed have made a difference - in a constitutional election if both sides were playing fair. But they weren't. Bush STOLE this election, full stop end of story. It doesn't even matter if the FOX thing is a little innacurate (and as I have seen the film, I don't believe the criticisms myself), because ALL of the other facts are still true. As for the actual article, there's nothing in there that changes my mind that this election was stolen, or that Farrenheit 911 was nothing more than (admittedly partisan) truth. People keep trying to attack work of people like Moore and stuff with insignificant details that do not detract from his work. But that doesn't matter, for just as most people who watch Moore's stuff are already convinced the president is dirty, the only people who'll watch films like "michael moore is a big fat stupid white man" are the people who are already convinced that Moore is a liar - in other words those people who support the things Moore attacks. I once fell for one of these stories, and was for a time convinced that "bowling for columbine" was a badly edited propaganda movie - but then within a week Moore came out with individual points to defend the attacks - just as he has done with farrenheit 9/11 at his website. http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911no...index.php?id=16 So I believe I will still take my news from people like Moore, and not the right-wing propaganda machines constantly seeking to debunk him.

In other words, no one could ever say that the war is definitely over. Hmmm........ Bush said "we can't win the war on terrorism" I wasn't referring to "The War" so much as the strategy of warfare in general. There's been terrorism forever, but it is becoming a more prominent weapon, and one that doesn't fit into the gameplan of a traditional, large-force-based war. The way we fight wars does not work against it, and it is no longer necessary for an opponent to be capable of fielding an expensive "army" to have a tremendous impact. The world will have to re-develop its tactics somehow to maintain real stability. "The War on Terror" is a stupid term, and it really only makes sense from an intelligence perspective at this point. For now, it isn't something anyone can "win" so much as "keep under control" for a while at a time. very true.

Yup. Of course the day after he said "we're winning and we will win"

In other words, no one could ever say that the war is definitely over. Hmmm........ Bush said "we can't win the war on terrorism"

I know alot about Australian politics too. Besides, political theorists in this country are saying that the US election is more important for the future of Australia, both economically and otherwise, than the upcoming Australian election. I personally think that if Bush and our right wing government wins office again, both countries will go completely down the toilet. As an extreme example, read this - this terrified me; http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=38

You didn't remember? Bush (with the help of his daddy) stole the last election illegaly, and he's going to try his damndest to steal this one. http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=27 No... Bush won because he had more Electoral College votes. Al Gore just won the popular vote which in America means jack-crap. No, Bush won because a program manager at FOX news called Bush the winner of the election even though the true number was far too close to call. Then, the rest of the networks just fell suit. Plus, thousands of black voters were denied the right to vote, at least in Florida, where out of the 13% of the black population, over 50% were on the exclusion roll. PLUS, thousands of postal votes were miscounted - for instance, votes where both main candidates were voted for were counted as being votes only for Bush, plus postal votes which came in later than the due date were counted but ONLY if they were votes for bush, etc... etc... etc... And now with the new paperless-voting system it will be far easier to rig the election, plus (at least in the election discussed in the article) postal votes were recieved with the person's preference (Ie who they voted for) on the OUTSIDE of the envelope, which, if this technique is used in the federal election, will make it even EASIER to rig the election. So much for democracy. You must have read Michael Moore's books Yup. And other things.

Just a nightmare. A nightmare.

I dun think even Bush will do that. Why show to the world that you are humbled by mere terrorists who manage to attack "mighty" America's economy icon and military icon? If I were a conspiracy nut I'd say it was all Bush Sr.'s idea. There is legitimate evidence to suggest that George was in fact the 3rd choice from the Bush family to run for president. So maybe they needed an event that was so shocking it gave Bush the chance to seem like a hero president (and he flocked it up badly, but nevertheless). If I were thinking along those lines, it's inevitable that the Republican convention would have been in New York - in fact, Bush even wanted to go to Ground Zero!

Because al Qaeda see themselves as freedom fighters, fighting capitalist oppressors. They've staged attacks all around the world, not just in the US.

You didn't remember? Bush (with the help of his daddy) stole the last election illegaly, and he's going to try his damndest to steal this one. http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=27 No... Bush won because he had more Electoral College votes. Al Gore just won the popular vote which in America means jack-crap. No, Bush won because a program manager at FOX news called Bush the winner of the election even though the true number was far too close to call. Then, the rest of the networks just fell suit. Plus, thousands of black voters were denied the right to vote, at least in Florida, where out of the 13% of the black population, over 50% were on the exclusion roll. PLUS, thousands of postal votes were miscounted - for instance, votes where both main candidates were voted for were counted as being votes only for Bush, plus postal votes which came in later than the due date were counted but ONLY if they were votes for bush, etc... etc... etc... And now with the new paperless-voting system it will be far easier to rig the election, plus (at least in the election discussed in the article) postal votes were recieved with the person's preference (Ie who they voted for) on the OUTSIDE of the envelope, which, if this technique is used in the federal election, will make it even EASIER to rig the election. So much for democracy.

The full story of Zell Miller's blasphemy, by the way, is that 16 of the 19 cuts to weapons systems Kerry was accused of voting for he voted against, and the other 3 were were proposed by none other than DICK CHENEY!!!

Seen it. IT's awesome!

Zell used to be a democrat but the mutherflocking traitor's changed sides now, that dirty no-good piece of excrement!!! (By the way I've now heard his speech if it wasn't obvious!)

You didn't remember? Bush (with the help of his daddy) stole the last election illegaly, and he's going to try his damndest to steal this one. http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=27

That video does leave some interesting questions unanswered. But the question remains, unless Bush planned the whole attack (something even I have trouble accepting), if he was so incompetent as to not even shoot down the second plane headed for the WTC, why would he order an attack on the Pentagon instead?

Do you guys have to join a party when you register to vote? That's odd. No, the person just asked me if I wanted to join a party. I said "No thanks." I don't want to be fettered by party alliance. But what does it mean if you do join a party? Do you somehow have to vote for that party? What difference does it make, in other words.

Do you guys have to join a party when you register to vote? That's odd.

LMAO! Look at this bumper sticker about Bush;

My ass it ain't. For as long as I can remember, the Democrats have had this Robin Hood-ish attitude. Taking money from the rich and give it to the poor. It's pathetic that 40% of the population in the USA have to be the most whiniest, laziest, pieces of complete useless sh!t and all they care is getting money and sitting on their ass. Kids shouldn't be allowed to discuss any forms of politics. They lose automatically. Same goes with idiots. Zing!

Why do Fatal's threads always end up derailing until they just basically become to be about nothing?

Gee you've been all up on the double entendres lately haven't you?