Deutscher75

Just less reserved so you're fine, lol I was just warning you to be careful and not cross the threshold into belligerent asshole!

I know, I was just putting it out there was there was no misunderstanding of me and the Dems. The Government is part of America? True, but it's the ruling entity, not America as a whole. America is the people of this nation, we make this nation, not the Government. It is much easier to debate because you become less reserved while intoxicated. But don't get too drunk, there's a line between being able to debate more fluently without reserve and just sounding like a belligerent asshole lol

For the record I support the Democratic Presidential Nominee Barrack Obama, but just because I support him it shouldn't be taken as me loving all democrats, I don't support all democrats because I'm a democrat myself. I'm far from a partisan voter and I chose my candidates based on what they can do for me that matters most for me and what I feel this country (or my city/state) needs most and if that candidate can do it. He was a patriot, not a terrorist. His actions can be viewed as such, but just because he blew some Government property up and accidentally killed a few people in the process doesn't mean he's a terrorist. A terrorist feels no remorse for the lives they take, Ayers did/does and that's 1 of the big differences. Again follow what the Government says all you want, I'll make my own educated judgments and decisions, as I already do; and Red for the record I'm far from a mislead young individual. Just because my ideals and what I believe to be true doesn't align with what you believe and see through your own eyes, does not mean I am wrong or even close to being wrong. I'm an individual and my opinion and beliefs should be respected as such just like anyone's. The First Amendment guarantees me that right without discrimination.

blah blah blah I have yet to see an argument against mine. I call it like I see it and I'm positive I'm not the only person/scholar out there that objectifies this same viewpoint. He may have killed people, but WAAAAAAAAY back when during the American Revolution so did American militiamen and others. I defend his actions because the death's of innocent civilians was unintentional and you all want to point the finger at me but how many fucking innocent have we killed in Iraq and Afghanistan over this stupid ass war? That's the sole reason why the terrorists continue to plot against us, because we kill their innocent youth and women. And I know I'm not wrong on that matter. I'm not defending him for having taken innocent lives, I'm defending his actions because they were righteous against the federal government. And to those who say the Fed is all that is American...man you're some brainwashed fools, wake up and realize the Fed's only intention is to provide a false sense of security and scare you into doing what it wants you to do. And for the record I'm drunk as fuck and that's why I don't care to put it all out there, because it's the truth and you'd all rather believe the Government instead of thinking for your damn self like you're supposed to be doing. Those quotes don't mean shit...just more bullshit

Federal education loans are guaranteed not to exceed a certain interest rate, both subsidized and unsubsidized. Subsidized loans don't accrue interest until after you graduate, while unsubsidized do accrue interest while you're in school. The interest rate does fluctuate, but within a certain range that is not subject to change beyond what is stated in the original agreement of the loan. You have nothing to worry about, but as HippieChick stated it's best to pay your way as best you can to prevent the collateral build-up of interest on your loans. It adds up. I just recently finished paying off the interest balances from my loans and have begun actually paying towards my principal balance and I did it all within 1 year. It's not that bad. Avoid private loans though, they're the ones that'll dick you in the end. And if you can once you get out of school invest in 1 loan with a fixed rate to pay off all your student loans. You'll then only be paying interest on 1 loan instead of interest on multiple loans which is what the killer part is.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

It did, I'd be lying not to admit it made me LOL! ;D

So you admit that William Ayers is a terrorists that attacked the United States, and in a interview when asked about how he felt about his terrorist acts said that he felt he had not done enough. Bombing several government buildings and killing at least one NYC Policeman was not enough to satisfy Ayers. But your point is what day the interview was conducted is somehow important? That if the interview was done on a day different than 11 September 2001, that somehow makes William Ayers past deeds and comments OK? No I don't admit that Ayers is a terrorist that attacked the United States. There's a fine line between political activist who tried to convey his point peacefully, was shut out then turned to radicalism to convey his point and him being considered a terrorist. Think of the time period and think of who he was trying to convey his point to (the Federal Government) and what that point was (get out of Vietnam where we didn't belong). Yes, by definition what Ayers did can be considered terrorism, but looking at what he did from a historical perspective he isn't a terrorist nor were his actions terroristic BECAUSE of how he went about his actions of bombing his targets and the reasons why he did bomb them to begin with. Ayers may have caused the death's of some innocent, but it was never his intent. The views of Ayers, his followers, and those involved in Weatherman were never to harm anyone! And it can be read as so time and time again in both the doctrine he wrote of his beliefs at the time and then again in his book published in 2000, just as well it stated the same principles in the creed of Weatherman. The intent of both him and the institution he represented (Weatherman), was merely to attack and destroy Government institutions intending to let the Government know of his/Weatherman's disapproval and by no means ever intended the fear or death of the innocent masses. Ayers even declared that the accidental death of the NYC police officer that was killed during one of the bombings has always been something that has weighed heavy on his heart because he never intended for anyone to get hurt. Just simple destruction of Government property. This can easily be seen from the times during the day the bombing attacks occurred; they always took place at times when the least amount of human damage was likely, at night, when few if any people were around, again in an attempt to prevent the loss of innocent human life. Ayers knew the difference between who was responsible and needed to be shown Weatherman meant business and who the innocent were. A terrorist by definition cares not of how precious human life is and has no respect for it just as they have none for the property they destroy. In retrospect Ayers did have respect for the property he was destroying because he knew that by specifically targeting certain places it would get his point across and it did, though not to the extent he wished which is where his "didn't do enough" comment comes into play. When Ayers stated that he "didn't do enough" it wasn't intended to be taken as he was trying to hurt people, rather he "didn't do enough" to show the Government they needed to stop their actions in Vietnam, withdraw all American fighting forces, and change It's policies. Ayers didn't attack the United States, that would insinuate that he attacked both property and the American population intentionally to see it's demise in some manner, which is not so. He only intentionally attacked Federal Government holdings and institutions such as the Pentagon and the Statue that he destroyed 4 times with no intent and as many precautions to prevent the loss of human life as possible, solely aimed at making change within the Government. Your viewpoint is significantly flawed because you don't take the circumstances into account and summarily lump him in the same boat as those who committed the acts of 9/11, which is nowhere near at all being the truth of what he did and is responsible for. What didn't "satisfy" Ayers was that his actions didn't persuade the Government enough to stop what they were doing at the time, NOT that he was thirsty for more blood as you make him out to be. When dealing with an issue like this remember it is important to make your decisions and thoughts objectively without bias and observing all the facts and events that took place. I can tell from the way you speak of Ayers you have not done this, therefore what you say is an opinion and not fact. Which is the truth because your viewpoint is one of subjective nature, which 99% of the time is how historical fact is distorted into fiction and thus becomes opinion. William Ayers never carried out a terrorist attack against the United States, rather he committed acts against the Federal Government in protest as a patriot of the United States. The Federal Government is an entity of the United States that we elect to run the United States and can be changed at anytime, even if necessary through destructive means, it even declares such action as appropriate in the Declaration of Independence. (Remember that the colonial militias during the American Revolution carried out vast guerrilla tactics against the British ruling government and the British military. Britain's leadership including James III and the British military referred to these tactics as being terrorist actions. Americans stand by those tactics and actions to this day as fighting for our independence even though by your definition and the current American Governments definition that those acts where "terroristic", in reality they weren't. Any Government that is coming under attacks that threaten it's security as a ruling entity will declare such acts as acts of terrorism. Again, that theme is prevalent throughout all of history. The French Monarchy declared the French Revolutionists actions as terroristic as well, but it wasn't so, especially considering how closely their revolution was modeled after our own. And I can guarantee that if we traveled back in time the founding fathers would agree full-on that Ayers is not a terrorist, but merely someone who desired change and acted upon that desire to change the ruling government through destructive means, only to achieve a positive outcome (quintessentially a patriot). The terrorists of 9/11 wished to see the demise of the United States as a whole not just that of the ruling government alone. Ayers wished to keep the United States in relative peace, but sought change in our ruling body, the Federal Government. That's the difference, therefore by proper explanation and objective definition Ayers is not a terrorist nor was he ever, rather he was a man who sought change much as our founding fathers did and acted upon that desire to change. And yes it does matter when Ayers made those comments and when the interview in which he made them did take place. If he had made those comments ON 9/11 the interview would have most likely been done after the events of that day had taken place and he would have been portrayed more as one of the hijackers who attacked the twin towers and pentagon, instead of being a political activist who sought change in the Federal Government, which is what he really is. I do believe that what he did was "OK" because his intentions were to bring peace and positive changes in Government and were not intended to destroy the United States as a whole from within; as you make him out to be. I agree that the accidental death's associated with his actions aren't applaudable, but from an objective viewpoint are also far from being related to terrorism. (Now on a side note separate from the above argument.) In my own opinion I wish more people in this nation had the balls that Ayers had, this nation wouldn't be in the place it is now because of our current ruling entity and would probably be a lot better off if our own Government didn't scare us into submission from rising against it. Again remember it was this exact "tyranny" that caused the American Revolutionists, amongst other issues, to take up arms against the British and fight for Independence. So what say you Hog? Are the American Revolutionists to be considered terrorists as well?

Space Invaders on Atari

Nice highlights Tow, I'd say you hit it on the head perfectly with everything you said. I can't wait for tonight!

it cant be that bad can it ??? Better believe it wtf zomg you cant be serious. that aint funny. how bad is it really? i mean i honestly need to know. Well more like as a precaution you should probably drop your pants, bend over and stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye...because it might be prettier than these next few months to 2 years :-\ ;D

oh damn! wow that hurts :-[ lol Wonka too funny, they both are awesome choices, I like the bottom one the most though haha

Deutscher means "I am German" obviously in German lol and "75" was the number I wore throughout high school and college football before I stopped playing. With the advent of the new Socom, I've been considering a name change myself. Really have no ideas yet but I might incorporate the position I play in rugby with it. I'm not sure yet, perhaps something like "Ruckmeister" or "Powerhouse" to insinuate at the nickname of my position, which is a Locke (2nd row) otherwise known as the powerhouse of the scrum. Actually that sounds pretty kick ass, "Powerhouse" it's fitting. Anybody have any suggestions? Maybe something with a little swagger to it?

it cant be that bad can it ??? Better believe it

And Hog the interview in which Ayers made that comment that "he didn't do enough" took place before 9/11, the article in which the interview was cited just happened to be run on the same day.

Hey Scare I wasn't jumping on you just to let you know, sorry if it came across that way, I was just making a blanket statement on the issue as a whole, not against you. And Hog, again there is still NO standing proof Obama knew of these acts. Even though I'm a History Master's Student, I never heard of Ayers until he was brought into the media light recently and just because Obama lives in the same city as Ayers doesn't mean he necessarily knew of Ayers and his acts prior to meeting him or dealing with him. And Ayers from what I see is an American Compatriot who targeted the Federal Government through Weatherman because of his radical leftist idealogies against the Vietnam War. He may be considered a "terrorist" but he's nothing more than an activist who protested against the war and took it to a radical level. He targeted the Government for it's actions in another nation we didn't belong in, not his fellow citizens; though some did die unintentionally as a result of collateral damage.

Crap...you guys got me so fired up about this stuff that I can't focus on the 10-page paper on Islam I have due in my Master's writing course tomorrow.

WORD!

I'm not getting my hopes up, just excited with the idea much as anyone would be. Browns might actually be making their first intelligent move in the front offices since signing Joe Thomas last year. But we don't know, therefore I'm not assuming anything, just excitement. If it happens then WONDERFUL if not then it's just more disappointment I'm already used to...much as you Cubs fans are

Who a person meets or comes into contact with in their past is just that and nothing more. How can you hold Obama responsible for having met a terrorist? Just because he met him and possibly had dealings with him doesn't mean shit. You guys are insinuating that he knew the guy was a terrorist. How can Obama be held responsible for someone becoming a terrorist after meeting them? You can't! It's just a way of pointing a finger and trying to paint Obama as a bad guy. When sufficient proof and proof that can prove without a reasonable doubt that Obama knew this guy was a terrorist or was planning to become a terrorist can be provided then don't bring it up. It's just more bullshit to try and mar Obama's past. Sure he met him and may have dealt with him, but there still does not exist any proof that Obama knew what this guy was or was going to become. You can't hold someone responsible for something that they didn't know or weren't informed of, it's absurd! It's like saying Jeffrey Dahmer's victims knew he was a serial killer and was a cannibal before going to his house and being killed, they didn't know and weren't informed of this so how where they supposed to know? Just like how was Obama supposed to know? Too many people are too quick to point the finger and open their mouths before thinking. Have some common sense people and think before you pass judgment on something that there is NO standing proof for. Ignorance is bliss and those who are uninformed breed stupidity.

Hey Player I got confirmation from another source today that Cowher did indeed buy a house in S-ville. I like the way this is going, now let's just hope Browns management does a buy-out on Crennel's contract and brings Cowher in to replace him and bring the brownies to dominance!

Today McCain asked Obama and the Debate Commission to post-pone this Friday's debate in order to return to Washington to deal with the proposed economic bail-out. Obama and the commission both refused and for the same reason; that Obama has been able to take part in hashing out the bail-out through the help of his aides while on the campaign trail and has been actively giving his input and arguments towards reaching an agreement on the plan. McCain has done no such thing except declare that he doesn't support the bail-out much as Obama did, but at least Obama is trying to help work it out and has stated when it comes time for the final vote he will be present for the vote, McCain has agreed to do the same. (That changed today when McCain announced he will suspend his campaign only on Thursday to return to Washington to try and help an agreement between both parties, as the GOP looks to McCain as their make shift leader aside President Bush.) As far as McCain's involvement with the bail-out, he agreed with Obama's decision to support the bail-out as long as it met a certain list of criteria that surprisingly both candidates support and agree upon. (A political ploy by McCain most likely, as the economy is significantly McCain's weak spot of knowledge and expertise, because the list of terms they agree upon were 95% written by Obama) McCain said in a New York press conference today “I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself.†McCain also said “It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.†Obama responded from a news conference in Clearwater, Florida, “there are times for politics and there are times to rise above politics and do what’s right.†But he said he saw no need to cancel the debate, scheduled for Friday night at the University of Mississippi.“This is exactly the time when people need to hear from the candidates,†Mr. Obama said. He added: “Part of the president’s job is to deal with more than one thing at once. In my mind it’s more important than ever.†Although Mr. McCain was the first to emerge on Wednesday afternoon and announce a change in campaign plans, Mr. Obama began the exchange with his Republican rival on Wednesday morning. “At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal,†said Bill Burton, the spokesman for the Obama campaign. “At 2:30 this afternoon,†he added, “Senator McCain returned Senator Obama’s call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement.†Some Democrats reacted skeptically to Mr. McCain’s surprise announcement, charging that it seemed like a political ploy to try to gain the confidence of voters concerned about the economy. “What, does McCain think the Senate will still be working at 9 p.m. Friday?†Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania said in an interview, referring to the scheduled start time of the debate. “I think this is all political — I wish McCain had shown the same concern when he didn’t show up in the Senate to vote on the extension of the renewable energy tax credit.†http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/us/politics/25mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin My Opinion: Yet even more of a reason why I prefer Obama. McCain has been avoiding the economic bail-out to focus on his campaign while Obama has been dealing with both the bail-out and his campaign and McCain has only called to suspend his campaign in lieu of the fact that Obama is doing MUCH more for the proposed bail-out then McCain. And now on top of avoiding the bail-out thus far, he's looking to post-pone and avoid the debate because the economy is going to be a HUGE issue in the debate and McCain knows he's fucked when he's presented with those questions on Friday night. IMO by going back to Washington on Friday to deal with the bail-out instead of doing the debate he's likely to avoid the economy as an issue, thus saving his ass from embarrassment by Obama when Obama blows McCain out on the economy. And to the nay-sayers, I know Obama's policies are socialistic, but if you look at EVERY OTHER democratic nation in the world that ISN'T in our position with the economy, health care, and education they are FAR MORE ahead and have minimal problems with these issues. Kind of a shame when you have foreign companies and banks purchasing big companies of our industry and financial institutions just to help save our asses because republicans would rather continue a war and keep borrowing money from China. Under McCain we'll go more into national debt with China and the Saudi's, under Obama sure our taxes will increase but his plans will fix our problems with OUR OWN MONEY and prevent our financial and industrial institutions from being further bought out just to save our asses from total collapse. Obama has my vote, I'll deal with higher taxes and big government to prevent further foreign intervention in our economy and nation as a whole. This is the United State of America, the most independent and rights given nation on the Earth NOT a place for every other First World nation to have a sphere of influence over our economy, industry, and the everyday life of American citizens. I'll be damned if some British, Chinese, Japanese, or Saudi Bank is going to be the one I go to for a mortgage when I buy a house for the family I'm beginning to build. America is NOT FOR SALE and I'll be damned if I have to raise my child under those types of circumstances when he/she is born in 6 months.

I tried but the walls kept stopping me ;D Lol I knocked over a latter trying to walk into the house with a girl my parents didn't even wake up lol. Nice, lol I always got caught with shit like that, the parentals have super human hearing

I tried but the walls kept stopping me ;D

I got hammered last night for my buddys birthday...I don't feel so well today :-X