I was fine with pounding on the Taliban, but I don't think the goal should have been to do any 'nation building' there. Beat the crap out of the Taliban, kill all the Al Qaeda we can find, then get immediately out - a la the 1991 gulf war.

I don't think we should been in Afghanistan for longer than it took to decapitate the current Taliban leadership. None of this 'force democracy down your throat' crap. We didn't care that they weren't democratic before 9/11.

I did not have a problem with us invading Afghanistan because the Afghani government hid and protected Al Qaeda after 9/11.

Don't get me started ;). Yeah, we've gone from the policeman of the world (understandable in many cases) to the 'overzealous swat douchebag' of the world.

I am against sending troops or drones or air strikes of any kind inside of countries that have not explicitly given us permission that we are not at war with. Every president has probably flirted with this, but Bush really made it policy and Obama has followed suit (the f*cking coward.)

He isn't what? He isn't better than W? Are you crazy? My f*cking dog would be a better president than George Bush Jr. I've had navel lint smarter than that dipsh*t.

If Rove hadn't sabotaged McCain in 2000 we'd very likely be in a much better place.

Sadly, since that bitter back stabbing McCain has become "new and improved McCain - now with more crazy!"

Let's hope somebody sane can make it through the Republican primary to give non crazy people someone to vote for besides whatever Democrat comes out on top.

The Republican party should get down on its knees and kiss Colin Powell's a** until he says 'yes' - I swear that man would win in an absolute landslide. Hell, the Democrats would probably just concede the election once he'd won the primary.

Again, sadly, the Bush gang poisoned that great man as well.

No, it isn't - unless you're using the trivialized definition of the word where if you are standing a foot from me then you've 'invaded' my personal space. No rational person could compare our actions in Libya with the invasion of Iraq.

No rational person could compare asking congress for permission to retaliate against Syria if they used chemical weapons with "attempting to invade Syria."

Party affiliation? I'm an independent. I'd love for a non-retard conservative to somehow magically make it through the primaries.

If Bush 2 did it, I wouldn't be bringing it up as an example of how shameful his presidency was, I'd be bringing up the part about lying to absolutely everyone about WMDs simply to get the war he wanted.

You sound like you're viewing things through a political filter to me.

He tried to invade Syria?
He invaded Libya and won a quick victory?

<InigoMontoya>I do not think that word means what you think it means...</InigoMontoya> ;)

Seriously?

Have we invaded a new country while lying to the entire world about why?

Obama is a disappointment, Bush was a shameful embarassment. Too bad too, because McCain in 2000 (not the bitter f*cked over by Karl Rove McCain of 2008) would have likely have been a decent president.

The irony here is that I think Obama has been tremendously disappointing, and yet he's light years better than the idiot that came before him...

Ye Gods and little boarlets...

They do, they just tend to be quieter than the others. :)

Good morning spelling Hitler! :)

^this

...with the specialized hardware for managing such an internet.

If 'concerned' companies like Cisco were really worried about important data getting through they'd be asking questions about why broadband in the U.S. is so crap on a cost/benefit ratio compared to other modern industrialized nations; and, if they were really concerned about health monitoring and public safety, they certainly wouldn't leave it up to the free market to safeguard those concerns - they'd want a separate protocol for those types of devices/systems.

Anyone who grew up with the early internet (by which I mean the very early 90's, not the DARPA days) and greeted each new increase in bandwidth with elation will recoil with horror at the thought of being throttled by some greedy middle man who YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING to get access to the endpoint you're now being screwed over.

I'm not one for espousing socialist policies, but I'd rather see all the fiber in the U.S. in the hands of the government than net neutrality be legislated out of existence and it be in the hands of Comcast. I know that's like comparing two handfuls of crap, but it would appear that some crap is worse than others.

It is a big deal, but people who espouse one console over the other tend to do it for subjective reasons. A perfect example is your referring to the XBox One as the XBone, you're exhibiting a subjective prejudice that really makes no sense. People who act like this are the same people who constantly argue over whether OSX is better than Windows or if Linux is better than both or Windows is... Et cetera, ad nauseum.

I have no problem with people choosing a PS4 over an XBox One, hell I have a 360 and a PS3. I had the PS3 first and got the 360 for Rock Band and the kids (there were reasons why Rock Band on 360 was a better choice at the time.)

I chose an XBox One at this time because I liked the way the 360 was moving towards being an all in one entertainment device. The XBox One has been great for that. I'll probably have a PS4 eventually, but who knows.

If I'm worried about "more powerful" I'll use my PC, it's vastly more powerful than either of them. Ignoring that unless you're an expert you'd never be able to tell what console you were using from watching gameplay footage without doing a direct comparison and freeze-framing and only then it would be some of the time. Who cares? Seriously.

Hell, I hope Nintendo pulls a rabbit out of the hat and comes up with something mind blowing, never count them out.

Aaah, okay, suddenly the definition of not being dead has evolved into

- lol.

I guess that makes the PS4 camera dead on arrival, eh? Wonder why they keep selling like hot cakes... People must like dead hot cakes.