VogonFord

Already read it. Owen also maks sure I know what it means

You obviously missed the chapter, "The Lure of the City". And I do enjoy your McCarthy-like stereotype that anyone who is against your view must be a communist. Proves that we haven't advanced much in the mind for fifty years.

Band of Brothers is, by far, the best TV show ever aired. It surpases all but the best movies in sheer quality. There is no show I know that has made me react in such a way to the plight of another. First off, what the show is. The show was a 10-episode miniseries on Easy Company, 2nd Batallion, 501st PIR, 101st Airborne Division and their exploits during WWII. It is not the show of an officer making all the difference in the war, it is not the show of a Rambo-type guy shooting all the Germans, it is a true story- the story of a group of normal boys who got put into the worst hell man has ever created- war. The actors all do supreme jobs of making their characters real. It hurts when you see Muck and Penkala's foxhole explode with them in it. It hurts when you see Blithe take the bullet to the neck. You feel the losses that these men had to go through. But you also feel the joys, the little jokes and the overall brothership between them. The special effects are incredible as well. Instead of cheesy explosions it has explosions that are truly frightening (The actor playing Pvt. Daniel Webster admitted to having been incredibly scared when he saw the effects at work in front of him. He actually feared for his life it was so real!). Also, Episode 9- Why We Fight has an incredibly horrific and realistic depiction of a concentration camp and the evil that men do. Stephen Spielberg didn't want to create a glorification of war, he wanted audiences to experience the hell of battle. And he does frighteningly well. Also, an incredible score by Michael Kamen brings all of it together. If you haven't seen Band of Brothers, I highly suggest you do. You won't regret it at all.

I play a few WWII shooters and a lot of them have incredible music. To list a few: Hidden and Dangerous 2 Call of Duty Medal of Honor: Frontline Medal of Honor: Allied Assault There are more, too. They all have full orchestra, which is the best type of music, period.

Halliburton is just another example of how mankind fails to realize that the most important thing in life is life itself. They think its money. Well, I have news for you: it isn't. When we as a civilized world realize that war is hell and peace is bliss; that death is terrible on any scale and that life should be preserved at all times we shall end our stupid wars. But because of the deadly sins we do not realize this. The worst one today is greed. We have dug ourselves into a hole; a hole which if we do not start filling it up will eventually lead to the destruction of the entire human race.

Those who support the gambling industry haven't seen its effects. My family, especially my oldest brother, have and still continue to be hit hard by gambling. Poker is no exception. My brother dug himself deeply into debt because of poker. I don't care if it makes money, it is a terrible thing for society. People for some reason think they can win when they just can't. It ruins lives, separates families and for what? Making another millionaire. This is my problem with capitalism. Those at the top forget so easily where they came from. They don't remember the pain and suffering that their stuff causes. I hate gambling with a passion. It makes my brother's life so much harder. Not only does he have to fight his addiction to it every minute, but he has to work multiple jobs just to pay off his debts. Gambling may make a few people rich but for everyone else it drives them into a hole. I would be very happy to see it gone from the civilized world.

It is more to do with Victorian philosphy. I don't have the book with me (I'm typing on a laptop in DC while my home is in OR) but you should really try to find it- both of you. It helps explain to you a less romantic picture of the era. And, the author owns (I'm not sure if he's still alive) one of the largest picture libraries in the US, so it is well accompanied.

I find this issue to be actually rather funny. It is because it proves that liberals and conservatives have switched places on who is federalist and who is antifederalist. It seems that the conservatives are becoming federalist and liberals antifederalist, although this doesn't make sense in a historical, or in fact any, context. As a general rule liberals prefer stricter governments while conservatives prefer looser ones. However, having read all 200+ pages of USA PATRIOT Act of October 2001 and several responses to it (for example, Sen. Wyden, OR-Dem.), that the liberals are now wanting loose government and the conservatives a strict one. My answer to it is a simple three-letter acronym. W.T.F.

Ugh . . . I hope my silence on those sites will speak much more than I can in mere words . . .

Haha no I'm definitely wrong a lot the trick is to make your opponent feel that he's wrong instead of yourself. Works every time.

Note: I do realize there is a science forum; however, as I am far more interested in the political debate and ramifications, I put it here. Back in 1979, Jane Fonda, who to me is the epitome of evil, led a crusade against nuclear power. People became worried about the energy source: What don't we know about its dangers? Is it leaking radiation into our homes? If it melts down, will it be Hiroshima revisited? Why is this evil allowed to continue if it's killing people right and left? It didn't help that the worst reactor meltdown in US history, at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, happened in 1979, or that Fonda’s movie which led the crusade, The China Syndrome, was released as well. Since then people have campaigned to end any nuclear power plant made and desire the end of its usage. To any professional or amateur scientist (I apply under the latter but wish to be under the former), this is a very disturbing image of what Hollywood does to ruin the minds of good Americans. Nuclear power is, in truth, one of the most promising power sources available. It is a very clean power source, current stocks of U-235 are sufficient to power our energy needs for thousands of years (not to mention U-238 for the production of Pu-239), designs outside of the former Warsaw Pact are extremely safe and it is becoming less expensive than fossil fuels. First, I have some myths to debunk. 1. The “Hiroshima Revisited” scenario. This one is a commonly held myth about nuclear power. In it, people state that a nuclear power plant is capable of creating a nuclear explosion when it malfunctions. WRONG. Not only do Western reactors make serious malfunctions extremely improbable, there is simply not enough U-235 or Pu-239 in the core at any given time to create an explosive fission reaction. 2. Nuclear reactors constantly release deadly amounts of radiation. Although extremely minute amounts of radiation release do happen, because no containment structure is completely 100% effective, but these are less radioactive than you are naturally. In Western reactors, safety and the containment of radiation are primary concerns in their construction (unlike the Russian RBMK reactor, which was in use at Chernobyl). Even in a meltdown like at Three Mile Island, the amount of radiation released was incredibly tiny in comparison to the amount of radiation inside the containment structure. 3. Nuclear reactors are not safe. Although true with Russian reactors (such as the RBMK at Chernobyl or the submarine reactors they used, which were notorious for leaking and accidents), this is very untrue for Western reactors. Safety is a key concern. In fact, the United States Navy, one of the largest operators of nuclear power, has suffered no major nuclear accidents ever. Also, there has never been a meltdown in the West that has resulted in the breaking of the containment building (this is why Chernobyl was so bad, which is that the containment building was virtually nonexistent and the steam explosion blew a massive hole and leaked a very large amount of radiation). 4. Nuclear waste is impossible to deal with cleanly. Not true. Submerged water containment structures are very effective, as are all new designs for nuclear storage. This myth was true 30 years ago but, thanks to science, this has been remedied. Now to the pluses of nuclear energy. 1. Nuclear power is clean. Nuclear power does not release greenhouse gases. This makes it an extreme plus for electrical generation, as it does not pollute the atmosphere. 2. Nuclear power does not change the ecosystem in even close to as harsh ways as other forms of power. Hydroelectric dams, although clean, create horrors for fish life. Also, fossil fuel plants damage the ecosystem in more ways than one. Nuclear waste is easily stored for those who actually bother to store it, and these storage facilities can hold massive amounts of radioactive material safely and without harming the environment. 3. Nuclear power works in all weather. This is unlike solar and wind power, which, although cleaner than clean, can only work in certain areas and do not produce even remotely as much power as nuclear power. 4. Pebble bed modular reactors eliminate the need of water in the reactor. One of the problems with the old reactor designs of light water was that it heated the water and needed water to run. Not anymore; visit this website to find out more about pebble bed modular reactors, how they work and how they can revolutionize power as we now it: http://web.mit.edu/pebble-bed/ 5. Nuclear power is becoming a cost-effective solution to fossil fuels. Nuclear power now costs slightly less to operate than a gas powered electrical plant. With rising oil costs, this margin will become greater in the future. New designs like the PBMR make nuclear power an extremely good alternative to what we use today. So don’t jump on the anti-nuclear band wagon with Hanoi Jane (who is evil for not only being so avidly against such a great power system but also for being a disgrace to America and our valiant troops); join the wave of the future. Nuclear power the best solution for our energy problems today. As a final comment, I do not suggest that nuclear power is a permament solution; rather, a temporary one until fusion, the best power source period, is perfected.

I do not consider the 19th century free for any 1st world nation. The Industrial Revolution hit the little man very hard. I have an interesting book on the subject of the late nineteenth century entitled, "The Good 'Ol Days- They Were Terrible!" It is a good read and shows a more truthful depiction of how great our lives are today. Also, throughout the first half slavery was still legal, and throughout the entire century, as pointed out by Owen, women didn't have any real rights or freedoms in comparison to men. We just like to look at a different time and view it from the good points to make it seem like a better time than our world today. To put it lightly: it was far worse.

Hello there, fellow forummers. I am VogonFord. I'm 15 years old, live outside Portland, Oregon, and am a rather odd figure in political science (for example, I support the enviornment but I also despise gun control). My friend OwenKellogg introduced me to here. I joined tonight but won't be active for a while (I'm going on vacation tomorrow. Also, for those who are interested in history or want another website for discussion (aka fresh meat ), I help moderate on one of the largest history forums on the net, SimaqianStudio (www.simaqianstudio.com). I'll try to post on my vacation and I hope to crush my opponents here in discussion as well! Cheers, mates