Myk JL

I thought the Sci Fi channel started to suck when they no longer played Mystery Science Theater 3000. And when they started show Hercules, Xena, and crap movies that were Fantasy; not Science Fiction.

I do pretty much watch the Sci Fi channel for ECW & at times Anime. But yeah I could have watched that show on any other channel just as long as the commercials didn't piss me off.

If the initial burst explosion or freezing effect doesn't kill someone, the frozen parts inside would probably cause a complete shutdown of the circulatory system. Seeing as your brain can stay alive for 4 minutes without oxygen, could it be at all possible for someone to retain consciousness and partial body movement for those 4 minutes to exact revenge on however just stabbed them?

Isn't Ice Road Truckers on the History Channel?... I haven't watched any of those channels in a while. I did try to watch National Geographic only to find out they had foreign music on & changed the channel soon after.

If I do run into either show it's usually a show I've already seen & change the channel.

Funny... I bought 5 Twix & 5 Snickers Ice Cream Bars Today.

This will sound good until NAFTA gives them that reason to go to Mexico...

No, smokey knows I could never afford $400 for a weapon... he'll get me someday...

Most politicans need psychiatric screenings, but they would just end up using tax payer money which screws up the whole reason on why they need to go.

what do you guys that have seen the movie think about this?

Meh... I go to the movies for the boredom killing business.

Yes but embryonic stem cell research is so expensive that if a University cannot afford to conduct it, the money needs to come from somewhere that can. Because public donations are already factored into said University's budget, and the State's education fund cannot possibly squeeze out the extra dough for this important scientific research, the money must come from the Feds. It's the only way to get the research off the ground in a timely manner. If the research was no so important to the American people (such as brain damaged people like my older brother) then this wouldn't be an issue.

Again, same as above. The money has to come from somewhere. The government by the people and for the people. The research is too important to NOT fund.

I think the funding can come from anywhere else. In the hands of politicians though it's just for bragging rights. I just say remove all spending that doesn't involve protecting our borders & people would have the option to help fund this themselves if they want the money used that way.

Well he just doesn't believe the Government should give aid abroad anyway. I don't care if it isn't in the Constitution. Again, different times call for a different way of looking at things. In 1789, we wouldn't have even thought of giving aid to a foreign country with tax payer money. But now that we can, why the hell not? Now I can see why we shouldn't give aid to foreign Governments. That's why I think that our foreign aid should go to foreign non-profits.

I don't think it's right to rob from the poor to give to the poorer. If you want to give your money to non-profits over seas that's mainly your business. We don't all have to join in on the same cause just because a percentage thinks it's right.

Different times from the early '90s. One cannot say that's it's a good or bad policy without having any knowledge of the attitudes about gays in the army itself. I know of a few isolated incidents of gays in the army (openly) and their peers had no problems with it. It was the superiors of their supervisors that had a problem with it. I think it's time to overturn this policy if it is indeed, a non-issue anymore (it should at least be reviewed closely). But I think "dishonorable discharge" for homosexuals is quite insulting when one considers the fact that when you get too fat to do your job in the army, you receive an "honorable discharge."

It will hopefully happen at some point where they can be open about it.

And the problem is that you can't convince every employee in a given workplace to unionize. In fact, there is such a stigma attached to unions, that in this day and age, you can't even convince a majority of the workforce to unionize. Different times.

This is mainly due to minimum wage. Fighting it leads to fighting Feds & that's what makes it so scarey. Someone dictates what's the littlest you can have from outside of your job & if you don't like it you can just be fired & easily replaced by someone who may want that small wage.

That is just fear mongering. Just because a group CAN have rights, does not mean that my rights are going to be dictating by said group. Individuals do have rights, but groups can have rights too. Take unions for example, the employees in the union are a collective group that that rights of their own, while also protecting the rights of the individual employee.

Groups are fine, but it's not like your individual rights should go out the window just because your a part of a group. If group rights are individual rights then just leave it as individuals rights. Individuals have the rights to groups; not groups have the rights to individuals.

Did he vote YES because of his beliefs or because it involved tax payer money. His gay and civil rights voting record is appalling (in my opinion). And this just seems like one more vote against gays in his already less than stellar voting record (when it comes to homosexual issues).

My main issue with this one is the use of the word BAN.

I think you would need more proof on whether or not Ron Paul is homophobic. Like "Voted NO on banning straight adoptions in DC."

NOT presenting scientific facts that support creationism involved using tax payers' money? We should present scientific facts that support creationism because it wouldn't be at the cost of tax payer money? I'm sorry I don't understand. I was under the impression that this was just ideological.

Creationism is a dead horse. It makes as much sense as proving gravity still works. I am however sorry I must've speed read through this one. Does he support it or was he asking them to present facts that do or posibly could? Either way Ron Paul wants to get rid of Public Schools.

But I call this Government sponsored Religion. If people want their kids to have a Christian education, they should fork over the money themselves and pay for Christian and Catholic education. And what about Muslim or Jewish educations, would they not get tax-credits too? It's a slippery slope to give tax-credits for religious schooling.

All a Tax Credit seems to do is remove the tax from paying for the school. It doesn't mean the parents aren't paying. You would have to show proof of where he voted NO for Jews, Muslims, or even Athiest if posible on this issue.

But these tax payers' are also can't afford to go to college. If a student cannot afford to go to college but CAN get it otherwise, I believe they should be awarded some Fed cash. Black and Hispanic college have so little public funding and small enrollment as it is, where are they supposed to get the grant money on their own? Surely SOMETHING can be done.

I can't afford to go to college either & I'm white. The Blacks do have UNCF. Also something about a Black or Hispanic College sounds like a form of segregation we don't need in this day & age. There should be no problem with anyone going to any college if they have the money.

That is why animal protection laws are on the State level. I am big on animal rights, and with a score such as 14%, I have no choice but to take issue with that. That means that there were measures FOR animals that he voted against.

I'm not going to criticise Ron Paul on this issue, because I eat meat. Chicken's rights go out the window for me on a daily basis.

I may get to the rest later but right now I don't have time to discuss anymore of the highlighted issues.

Edit: I just took a big dose of FUKITOL and realized that I don't care anymore. I just don't agree with Ron Paul on these issues because I'm not a strict "consitutionalist." Happy?????

^.~

No... I was having fun...

Myk, just for the short stick, you're full of it.

I'm done posting here. I for one am glad he's not on the ballot.

And even if you're done here I find it contradictory for you to say Ron Paul was the cleanest then be glad he wasn't on the ballot.

Wasp Knife?... A lame name that has nothing to do with it's killing power.

Anyway it just seems it would be a lot more easier to find <insert item here> & jam it into some one's skull.

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)

It involved using the tax payers' money & Government has no business outside of defending the country.

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

It involved using the tax payers' money & Government has no business outside of defending the country.

Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)

It involved using the tax payers' money & Government has no business outside of defending the country.

Don't ask, don't tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)

I don't know how rampant homophobia is in the the army so I wouldn't know if it was right or wrong.

Gender-equal pay violates idea of voluntary contract. (Dec 1987)

I see a small problem here, but it's the same as minimum wage problem. The answer to this problem is unionising.

Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups. (Dec 1987)

So your rights belong to someone else? Would you really want the head of a group to dictate your rights?

Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

It involved using the tax payers' money & Government has no business outside of defending the country.

Present scientific facts that support creationism. (Sep 2007)

It involved using the tax payers' money & Government has no business outside of defending the country.

Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007)

They're not public schools. Anything that helps reduce taxes for anyone is good.

Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)

It involved using the tax payers' money & Government has no business outside of defending the country.

Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)

It probably involved using the tax payers' money & Government has no business outside of defending the country.

Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refineries. (Jun 2006)

Government has no business outside of defending the country. Voting no would have been the wrong stance to take on letting businesses run themselves.

Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)

It probably involved using the tax payers' money & Government has no business outside of defending the country.

Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

We have no business getting entangle with other countries affairs.

Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)

Government has no business outside of defending the country.

Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)

We have no business getting entangle with other countries affairs.

Scored 14% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007)

Constitution doesn't protect animals; just people.

Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)

I'm confused... Should he have voted yes for "forest thinning projects"? Besides it involved using the tax payers' money & Government has no business outside of defending the country.

State role on medical care for children undermines freedom. (Dec 1987)

State is the key word here. Not a Federal issue. And this stamps on private businesses. In other words It involved using the tax payers' money & Government has no business outside of defending the country.

Don't pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace. (Sep 2007)

We have no business getting entangle with other countries affairs.

UN membership leads to impractical military conflicts. (Feb 2003)

We have no business getting entangle with other countries affairs.

Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)

I bet if he could have he would have voted yes for leaving the UN. We have no business getting entangle with other countries affairs.

Sponsored bill invalidating International Criminal Court. (Mar 2003)

We have no business getting entangle with other countries affairs.

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)

Although I hate lobbyist they have the same right to privacy I do. I would however refer a Yes on requiring politicians to disclose the money they get & how / why they got it.

All humans have a dark side

:battle:

RP is pro life and I'm pro choice but fuck it man I'm fixed so... X'D

The Bible only has the stories that make Jesus sound like a god. The creators (not writers, the ones who decided which stories would go in the Bible) only wanted the people to learn about the holy side and not the human side of Jesus. Why else would the stories written by Judas, Mary Magdalene and Jesus (and countless other) not be included in the Bible. Many people who read the Bible believe everything that is written in it and don't question any other possibilities. I feel sorry for them. But everyone has a right to interpret the writings how they want to...

Most Politicians always have, and always will be, money whores. It's not a job most do just because they "want to do whats right" it's about power and the acquisition of more.

He's human. Human nature is Greed. He can be bought, the question is the amount.

As for presidents. I'd rather have Obama than McCain. sorry. but McCain just screams Bush. and I'm rather tired of Bush's idiocy.

Both candidates suck. McCain just sucks more.

Some of that stuff about Jesus Mary Judas & Thomas I've either watched or read. I don't know how accurate it is when compared to Zeitgeist, but it probably is way more accurate than anything that asshat was raving about.

I'm reminded of a problem I & some others have/had on a different forum. Their are 50 threads intended for conversations with people in your own state. Some people love to spam each & every one of them with ads.

Their was a man toting Goji Juice as a miracle cure that could also get you rich if you sell it. Now I'm using this area like most others to find people near my location & ask him not to spam.

He replies with something on the line of THIS IS NOT A SCAM! MYK I'M TRYING TO SAVE PEOPLES LIVES HERE! I told him I said spam, not scam. He continues to spam on a monthly basis after being asked by more than 1 person to stop spamming.

At some point I look to see if Goji Juice is a scam. I found a video on non accredited (Doctor) Earl Mindell, spokesman for Goji Juice blow up over CBC's finding on Goji Juice.

Now I'm not only telling this guy to stop spamming but showing him proof it's a scam. He gets mad & tells me DR. MINDELL IS AN HONEST MAN! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND I'M TRYING TO SAVE PEOPLES LIVES! THEIR LIVES MYK!

Sometime later this guy starts to play the race card. Making accusations that the people against him are racist. Now I didn't know this man was black. I just knew he was a spammer.

Looking into his profile on the site he's also 64 years old. (40 years older than me.) It's one thing to get into a flame war, but with some one that old? How senile does someone have to be to believe they're selling a miracle cure?

He eventually stops spamming a couple of times, but tends to come back spamming I MUST SAVE PEOPLES LIVES! YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT THIS PRODUCT IS. I WON'T STOP UNTILL I HEAR FROM THE ADMIN. And sarcasm like THERE'S NO MONEY TO BE MADE IN SAVING PEOPLES LIVES RIGHT?

In one of my final statements to this man I tell him he no respect for the meaning of the word "local". He throws around accusations that people that have been against him are racist. Well I know Im white so the most offensive I can think of is this... I HOPE SOME 1 GRABS DR. MINDELL BY THE BALLS & SQUEEZES THEM UNTILL THEY POP SO HE CAN SELL GOJI BERRIES AS TESTICLE REPLACEMENTS!

Months later there is a statement by the Admin on what's spam & he has for now stopped spamming. However the whole damn thing could have been avoided if the mods did their job. Apparently they only do if you might offend the admin.

Apollo 13, Fargo, The English Patient, A Beautiful Mind, Toy Story & Toy Story 2, Saving Private Ryan, Shine, Affliction, American Beauty, The Matrix, Boys Don't Cry, Erin Brockovich, Traffic, LOTR, The Machinist, American Psycho, The Hours, Road To Perdition, The Green Mile, Million Dollar Baby, Finding Nemo, The Aviator, Finding Neverland, King Kong (remake), Lars And The Real Girl, Dan In Real Life, Michael Clayton, We Own The Night, In The Valley Of Elah, Gone Baby Gone, Donnie Darko, The Notebook, Darfur, 310 To Yuma, Into The Wild ....... I can go on. And these are all movies post mid 90s. IF you liked an anime, would you want a second season? Like say, Black Lagoon or Gundam 00? Similarly we have sequels for movies, granted most of them turn out to be cheesy, but you can't not want the movie makers to make it. If it does well, they'd make it, it's common sense. It's like telling Nolan not to make another Batman movie because he's milking it? What I can't stand is directors making crappy versions of what's there - be it a remake or a sequel. The crop of movies you get to see today is bolder, provocative, and pretty much the same as before ...

I haven't seen Black Lagoon, but Gundam got royally screwed when they branched out of UC.

Batman Forever & Batman & Robin were pure crap. Grade F milk.

I was expecting to end up with someone more... Jack Assish...

You scored as a Batman, the Dark KnightAs the Dark Knight of Gotham, Batman is a vigilante who deals out his own brand of justice to the criminals and corrupt of the city. He follows his own code and is often misunderstood. He has few friends or allies, but finds comfort in his cause.

Batman, the Dark Knight 75%

Captain Jack Sparrow 67%

James Bond, Agent 007 58%

William Wallace 54%

Indiana Jones 46%

Lara Croft 46%

The Terminator 38%

Maximus 33%

Neo, the "One" 29%

El Zorro 25%

The Amazing Spider-Man 13%

There are a few other names but lesbian is the technical term we (me and my friends) throw around. However, I prefer Lesbian over the word gay. Gay isn't bad by any means, but I hear the word gay and I think gay man. I don't hear the word gay used to often to describe a woman who likes a women. I dunno. Lesbian is softer sounding though.

My only problem with the word gay is the other homosexual slang that has been popping up. Queens, Flamers, etc. I really only want to hear the word queen when referring to an actual woman of royalty. And since when was fire homosexual?

And I'm also upset that rainbows are now a gay pride symbol. I had preferred them to my childhood years when they lead to promises of fortune.

I'm not homophobic. Homosexuals deserve the same rights as others when it comes to politics. (IE Don't blame me they get kicked from XBL because of Microsoft's ToS.)

Happy B-Day!... *Gives the rest of my buttons from my remote control.*

Kinda sucks... Kinda doesn't... It's not like theirs tons of "nicknames" for Homosexual women. Now that would be really confusing.

The story sounds weird...

I'll start to worry even more once I've seen the cast...

I can only hope T4 doesn't suck like T3...