dayman

I can see the point in media in general clearly and with the show for non-book readers. Totally fair.

LOL my God are you ever NOT angry? Serious question I mean do you have friends?

I'm only commenting to address this. As a huge fan of the series the HBO-ification of that story line was actually different from the book but in a way (as actually happens quite a bit) that ads to the story for book lovers (but no doubt would subtract if the book did not exist). There are many subtle things hinted and hidden in plain sight in the books (including one major spoiler regarding Jon Snow's mom that everyone reading the book now knows despite it not being revealed yet as of book 5)....the books are absolutely glorious in that way and the author makes not effort to spoon feed anything. One such thing was that relationship. There was actually a complex and subtle writing behind that relationship and it was totally ambiguous but totally meant to show it was there and it was "hidden" well from the public but in plain sight if you knew what to look for at the same time. Obviously nothing would be better than having it remain the same in the show but with 10 1 hour episodes it would impossible you have to show it or not on TV...and they showed it. Most book lovers liked that...I understand how it's retarded for viewers but for fans of the series who acknowledge the limitations of the show we like to see affirmation of various subtle things that are argued about on the show...if the author himself wasn't directly involved we would probably all go nuts but it is "canon" in the sense that the author himself is involved. It actually furthers some of the stories in that manner...and this was one such case. And yes obviously the entire thing was handled differently in the book the book is very subtle you basically have to read into many things including that storyline. The same is true of Stannis banging down the red witch...that was ambiguous until the most recent book (book 5) and even then it still remains far from explicit. And in any event as you probably now know that knight is far from gone he'll be central for some time...however I assure you his gay scenes are over so no more worries lol his "love" is gone lol All I'm saying is HBo does what HBO does but in that one specific example and with this particular show a lot of the book fans love seeing certain stuff and that was one of them. Not b/c we love gay stuff...trust me those scenes are awkward as hell to watch...but it's nice to just see things on screen in front of you it adds to the writing really it doesn't distract from it. It's kind of like the answers to an easter egg hunt in the book (but by no means do I mean it isn't in the book this stuff IS IN THE BOOK CLEARLY but not explicitly).

I'm just going to knowingly destroy the topic...break all sense of the topic title and reign hate all over the place lol. Either way maybe (unlikely but maybe) there will be some honest discussion about this speech in retrospect both critical and positive where it is called for (although probably all critical)...lol...just for fun. And I already know exactly what line everyone will talk about but I won't spoil it until the backlash begins... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3uU_mCNcKM&list=FLJcAGGviXfI58PvYeu1JWdA&feature=mh_lolz

True good point. Moving along now...

To each his own to me he's no where near AL/GW nor Jefferson for that matter but that's not a knock I mean that's the top of the top.

No need to get into Reagan there was good and bad with him but I admire him and consider him a great President. That said...minus Roosevelt (who may or may not be on there legitimately) Reagan cannot stand next to the other men on that monument.

Did he not just crush the national democratic party?

LOL a quick google search shows the National Park Service is in charge of that thing (obvious in retrospect)...short of personally repelling an alien invasion there will be no more additions.

Reagan's life basically built him to be one of the greatest speakers in modern politics and so he was. Had multiple classics from the 60s-80s.

LOL not really I'm not overly anti-Scott Walker and I've never even been near the mid-west save one internship summer in Chicago which means little... it was a strong affirmation of his accomplishments w/ correcting budget crisis quickly for what it is worth. I'm sure you know exactly what I was referring to if you look at the text I quoted...at that assumes he applies that nation wide.

LOL there's the narrative nation wide for the board to trumpet?

Quiet down now that doesn't mesh with his extreme socialist domineering reputation that he clearly deserves.

NBC news calling Walker winner

So how long until Hitler ends up in here?

I love speeches. I'll post a few over time. The one phrase that always come to mind quickly (although perhaps not "political" necessarily): Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

What time will we know the official results?

I suddenly feel the urge for a bubble bath and white wine.

Oh...I see...sorry to engage you on this subject. Hard to keep track of everybody sometimes but I remember now.

That's definitely something that helps and a good point.

You just misunderstand what I'm saying. Never said it was inline with his speech (although it is consistent with portions of the speech emphasized and IMO the general thrust of that speech). The point is he's been diplomatic to the point that he is doing things without an overbearing outrage from other nations...and thus he can do it more easily. Assuming for the sake of argument that it was all totally inconsistent with anything he has ever said to international leaders...that would only strengthen my argument b/c the point is not that he's keeping his word it's that his words have had an effect on him not catching as much **** from the international community. It's called success in foreign relations when you balance relationships while still doing whatever you want. As for multi-lateral cooperation IDK if you just didn't read my post or what I specifically said when he can and cited nuclear nonproliferation and economic sanctions as primary areas where he's been a leader in multi-lateral cooperation. And the idea that the international community is afraid to criticize Obama b/c of being called racist is pretty retarded IMO.

The entire point I'm talking about with my post that caused you to start getting into it is pointing to drug crime (non-violent crime) as an overwhelming portion of our ridiculous prison rates. You point out that even if we cut it in half it would still be high, agreed...but cutting it in half would be a damn good start. And it is known that violent crime is primarily intraracial. If ou are suggesting that our melting pot is partly to blame as well...that's fine but it doesn't discount any of the damningly obvious indictments against the war on drugs at least as I see it. If that is your intention then clarify. If that is not your intention and you are just saying "ya but we're diverse too so more people are going to go to jail" then that's fine but it doesn't really address the subject. And in any event you're not really very specific about the reasons you think a more heterogeneous population causes more crime ... I'm not saying I disagree I'm just saying it is a separate issue. I do think the more heterogeneous population causes us problems other countries face to a much lower extent...most directly in education...and then education has a direct impact of wealth which flows directly into crime. So if that's the link you are suggesting I'm not opposing you. But it doesn't remotely discount the analysis in that article which (to me anyway) lays out a fairly damning indictment of our drug policy and it's effect on our prison crisis.

Well I'm talking about international opposition. It's not surprise that with less international outrage we'll have less domestic outrage.

I'll get busted for this but a large part has to do with the level of communication he has with Western leaders and friendly Eastern leaders...his reputation for multi-lateral cooperation whenever possible ( nuclear issues...economic sanctions...etc)..and (here's where it gets controversial) his Nobel speech outlining his basic philosophy that while controversial was relatively well received by most western leaders and was relatively honest (getting up and speaking about the necessity of war at a noble peace presentation lol) He's been a successful diplomat in that sense.

LMFAO. Anyway we're decimating al-Qaeda. And I know it isn't a laughing matter but: “Initially, four people were killed, but when the militants reached the spot, another strike occurred that killed many more, raising the death toll to 16,” the source said. can't help but chuckle I mean I wouldn't flock to the scene of the crime if I were militant supporters...run al-Qaeda...run away. It's also a bit disturbing military successes like this cause people on the board to be snarky at the President. But it's not surprising.