Sherwood

Best show on TV. Every season gets better than the last. The amount of character development is really stunning.

So, wait, are you or are you not in favor of being an international police force? You aren't in terms of Iraq, but you seem to be for Darfur and Rwanda. Do you want us to comply with the UN or not? We didn't as regards Iraq, which I doubt you look favorably upon. We did as regards Rwanda and Darfur. Are you happy about the outcome there? While oil is currently much more affordable than it has been, it was not for the majority of the war. That renders the "we invaded for the oil" argument null. We've been there before, and we didn't bother with the oil the first time except to extinguish fires. Do you have any evidence that we will have a controlling interest over oil after we eventually withdraw our current troops from Iraq? I'm not of the belief that human rights were a factor in the decision to send troops to Iraq. However, the overthrow of that regime and the subsequent efforts to foster a stable regime representative of the people are admirable things. Nonetheless, I'd prefer to spread some democracy in other ways in the future.

Also, head-fi forbids double blind test discussions, so even if they had been done they're tricky to post.

Regardless, this is mildly semantic and clearly OT. I was suggesting that your strong point of view is countered by another equally strong point of view, as is the case for almost everything. I feel the Iraq war was, in many ways, a mistake. I have difficulty feeling that way when I see the world's largest ethnic group without a nation so overjoyed by American actions.

Is that unreasonable? People are happy that they aren't dead, tortured, or systematically abused? That seems like a valid point of view, to me.

They're happy the 100,000 dead iraqis aren't them, certainly.

The majority of my Iraqi Kurdish friends disagree with you. Not to be a perennial dick, here, but there are legitimate groups of well informed people who disagree with your assessment, and I see their point.

You've seen it being written? You've physically watched someone write this? You need to choose your company more closely.

How about this?

Hear Hear! Or, rather, Here! Here! (right here, in my house).

I agree, though I understand the rationale behind it. It all boils down to the fact that you can't do anything if you don't win. Sad state, though, when playing dumb gets you votes. I give Obama credit for that. I don't recall him ever dumbing down to appeal to votes, though I do find some of his policies "dumb" in and of themselves. Kinda like a modern Adlai Stevenson, except for the winning part.

Exit polling has about a 10% margin of error even in the best cases, so I'll be anxious to see more substantiated results in the months ahead

I would disagree here. McCain ended up with about 48% of the popular vote, which encompasses the vast majority of registered Republicans and some independents. That is, unless there were Democrats that voted for him too, which I find unlikely. You may well have a handful of examples to the contrary, and I've no doubt that you do, but the general trend seems pretty set in stone to me.

I'm in a similar position as Grawk here. I voted for Bush last election, and stand by that vote. I legitimately do not feel that Kerry would have done a better job, given the circumstances. I also voted for McCain over Bob Barr, though I do regret that vote. Nonetheless, I like talking about it with you, Tyrion. Most people's political beliefs are set in stone by the time they get their undergraduate degree, but that doesn't mean it's not worth talking about.

Where do I apply for my MOT?

I spent some time with the Shanling, albeit with inferior headphones. It was good enough that I felt I could reastically identify a recabled KSC-75 from a stock KSC-75. I also spent about 10 minutes with the -==- and the Shanling, and it was really a nice combination. For the size and the flexibility, I really think it's a great amp.

Then I can expect to reasonably complete an egmont by the third try.

Justin, you clearly overestimate the "I fucked up 3 CMOYs" crowd...

Until they saw how much better we were than the British, that is.

The bailout was implemented in such a way as to mitigate itself, if the markets improve. It might take four years to do so, but it will happen with or without the executive officer's oversight. The bailout was not a blank check, and it will not likely cost as much as projected. The market tanked, in part, because it expected Obama to win. Now that he has, things can return to (kind of) normal.

TT = TurnTable

That I cannot argue with.

I'm of the understanding that, according to federal law, you are not compelled to recite the pledge of allegiance. Shudder to think what it will do to your kid in West Virginia to not say it, but you can hardly blame the feds.

I still argue with the use of religious in this sense, though, since forbidding gay people to marry does not require anyone's belief in a god. In fact, I can't think of a single piece of legislation which compels anyone to practice or subscribe to a religion in this country, though I surely can in other countries.

Religion is already kept out of politics in the way you're describing. There are no laws forcing anyone to practice or not practice any religion, regardless of who they are. The debate on this thread is substituting "religion" for "morality". Religious individuals are entitled to a vote, as is everyone. It is only natural that their vote line up with their beliefs, which in theory should be the guiding principle behind their every decision. The issue of gay marriage is not a religious issue, it is just an issue where opinions are strongly influenced by religion. There are certainly religious people who aren't inclined to allow the government to make decisions on marriage. What you seem to want is for religious people not to participate in politics whenever their views don't coincide with yours.