Slashdot Mirror


Captain America Buried in Arlington National Cemetary

coondoggie writes "Earlier this year Captain America was slain as the climax to Marvel Comics' Civil War event. The renowned hero will be buried in the next issue of Marvel Comics' 'Fallen Son,' due on July 5. 'Writer Jeph Loeb has been busy working through the stages of grief in his most recent titles, according to an Associated Press story. A book centered on Wolverine dealt with denial; one with the Avengers covered anger; and Spider-Man battled depression. With the story line so relevant to present-day politics, and the timing of the latest issue so precise, it's hard not to think the whole thing is one big slam on the government.'"

314 comments

  1. RIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RIP Captain America!

    1. Re:RIP by Edie+O'Teditor · · Score: 0, Funny

      Even if he never rescued you from villains or saved your hometown from a volcano, Captain America's impact on contemporary culture cannot be denied. He truly was an American icon.

      --
      If X is the new Y, and Y is "X is the new Y", solve for X.
  2. Uh, spoil much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about telling us Optimus Prime dies in the Transformers movie, too?

    1. Re:Uh, spoil much? by JWW · · Score: 1

      He does.

      .
      .
      .

      Just kidding.... or am I? ;-)

    2. Re:Uh, spoil much? by halivar · · Score: 5, Funny

      And, with his last, dying gasp, he falls on Hermoine.

      Dammit... I spoiled that one, too. I'm sorry.

    3. Re:Uh, spoil much? by Kilraven · · Score: 4, Funny

      Prime dying in a Transformers movie isn't a spoiler. You want to talk about spoilers in the Transformer movie? Tell me whether or not "the Touch" is played during the climactic battle in Bay's flick.

      --
      I didn't want to leave this blank.
    4. Re:Uh, spoil much? by Hanners1979 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Prime dying in a Transformers movie isn't a spoiler.

      Maybe not, but you have just brought on a relapse of Post Traumatic Stress for thousands of us who were kids in the mid-80s... ;)

    5. Re:Uh, spoil much? by Kilraven · · Score: 2, Funny

      Post Traumatic Stress?

      You must be speaking of the realization that Stan Bush's voice is the most powerful weapon in the Universe, capable of destroying a sentient planet.

      --
      I didn't want to leave this blank.
    6. Re:Uh, spoil much? by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      No clue, but it was playing in the rest rooms of the local theater last night when I was dragged to see Spiderman 3 again last night.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    7. Re:Uh, spoil much? by Kilraven · · Score: 1

      Dragged to see Spiderman 3? I'm not sure gunpoint could force me to watch emo-Tobey dancing again.

      Unless, of course, you were slipped a rufie then carried to the theater.

      --
      I didn't want to leave this blank.
    8. Re:Uh, spoil much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dirk Diggler sang it better!!! Feel feel feel feel feel....feel my heat!

    9. Re:Uh, spoil much? by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      I dunno. The disgusted looks on the face of the women he was pointing at was hilarious. That said, wasn't a big fan of the Tobey= John Travolta + AFI.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    10. Re:Uh, spoil much? by kill+-9+$$ · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh my gosh. The repressed memories. It didn't even register when I read the parent's post, but now after reading yours I remember it all. Rodimus Prime... ugghh. And to the other poster talking about "You got the touch"... its all flowing back too quickly....

      *curls up in fetal postion*

      --

      -- A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard
    11. Re:Uh, spoil much? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "Tell me whether or not "the Touch" is played during the climactic battle in Bay's flick."

      No, not during the climactic battle anyway. When the battle's over, they all sing it at the end... sort of like Shrek. Bumblebee's R2D2'esque solo is a scream!

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    12. Re:Uh, spoil much? by Kilraven · · Score: 1

      Seriously?

      I was so hoping for a Yub Yub cover.

      --
      I didn't want to leave this blank.
    13. Re:Uh, spoil much? by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      LOL! I just reviewed that moment from my childhood the other day by watching that scene... eek the 80's.

      --
    14. Re:Uh, spoil much? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      And, with his last, dying gasp, he falls on Hermoine.

      I thought she was already dead?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  3. To the author... by vigmeister · · Score: 1

    By killing off Captain America, aren't you letting the neocons win? I'd rather have seen an episode where Captain America punishes a perjuring White House aide...

    Cheers!

    --
    Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
    1. Re:To the author... by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      Ah, but the perjuring White House aide was a hero just like Cap. He fell on a grenade to save his boss. Then his boss'es boss brought him back to life

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:To the author... by db32 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Given that the Capt sorta is the American spirit and all that, I think his death is a bit more appropriate. We have been crushed and sold as a people. We have allowed our constitution to be highjacked, we have allowed our laws to be sold, we have allowed fear to rule our lives. There are a handful that are upset about this, but they are a minority by a long shot. I can't count the times I hear "If you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide" when I talk about how wrong the spying is, or even "Well did it, so why are you upset now?" like I was alive or aware of the others that have done it, or that the current crop aren't more blatant about breaking more laws to do it.

      The fact is, most people don't seem to care. King George was reelected. You can point to his low approval rating, but congress is even lower, and noone is actually doing anything about it. Slick Willy got a blowjob and it was the end of the world, King George starts a war, usurps our freedoms, potentially stole 2 elections...well...that doesn't make as good sensationalist dirty gossip story so noone cares.

      American Spirit is all but dead. Noone cares or is too busy shoveling themselves out of debt in our insane buy now pay later, keeping up with the Jones' culture. Lets not forget our wonderful lawmakers passed that nice law to make sure those poor credit companies don't have their money stolen by dirty citizens declaring bankruptcy!

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    3. Re:To the author... by 0123456 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Slick Willy got a blowjob and it was the end of the world"

      No, he committed perjury. Wasn't he disbarred for that?

      "King George starts a war, usurps our freedoms, potentially stole 2 elections...well...that doesn't make as good sensationalist dirty gossip story so noone cares."

      The Democrats now run Congress; why aren't they impeaching Bush?

      Ah, because most of them voted for Bush's War, and neither side wants to get into the habit of impeaching Presidents as they don't want theirs to be tossed out of office.

    4. Re:To the author... by MazzThePianoman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "Artists use lies to tell the truth. Politicians use them to cover it up" ~ V for Vendetta

      --
      "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Franklin
    5. Re:To the author... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      The Democrats now run Congress; why aren't they impeaching Bush?

      Sure, while it only takes a simple majority in the house to impeach...

      Chief Justice John Roberts would oversee the trial and
      It takes 67 Senate votes to convict. (Dems hold "51" but that's 49 with 2 independents)

    6. Re:To the author... by morari · · Score: 2, Funny

      King George was reelected. I think you're a bit confused about history. King George was a monarch, he wasn't elected. Silly.
      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    7. Re:To the author... by falcon5768 · · Score: 1
      because unlike the last President where the republicans owned most of the house and where able to force through a extremely unpopular impeachment proceding, the Democrats only own a slight majority.

      But more importantly because impeaching him wont get us out of Iraq any faster, which the Democrat leaders stated quite clear to the rest of the party when the younger ones wanted to impeach AND try him for treason after winning congress.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    8. Re:To the author... by goldspider · · Score: 1

      So in other words, there's nothing stopping them from at least getting the impeachment. Considering they've only been able to pass symbolic, non-binding resolutions in defiance of the president, one would think they'd jump at the chance to make such a loud (if ultimately inconsequential) statement.

      I thiink the GP post has it right; they don't want to expose their own to the same treatment.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    9. Re:To the author... by manowar821 · · Score: 1

      I can put this in a slightly un-eloquent manner... They're all in on it together. What exactly "IT" is, is still up for debate. RIP Captain America - May your death make you a martyr for nerds and/or anyone else with a spark of American spirit left

      --
      Internet: Serious Business
    10. Re:To the author... by N8F8 · · Score: 0, Troll
      Just because you choose to denigrate things you disagree with doesn't mean your opinions are valid. I chose to serve 9 years. My wife is still serving. I agree with most of what is being done and has been done with foreign policy. I read a big chunk of the intelligence that lead to these decisions as it was coming in and came to the same conclusions. I might add that most of Congress came to the same conclusions only some choose political expediency over honor and integrity. I listened to GB's UN speech before the UN and know for a fact that it is almost entirely correct, even today with hindsight.

      I don't like the poor fiscal policy of Congress. I think too many things are pushed to the Federal level. I think the Federal government is too powerful. I believe in "these united states" over "The United States". I think that lawyers have taken over all three branches of government and it's a BAD thing.

      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    11. Re:To the author... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > The Democrats now run Congress; why aren't they impeaching Bush?

      Because:
      1. he's only got a year and a half left in office
      2. he's the dumb one - that would still leave cheney - the brains behind the idiot - as president
      3. it wouldn't help get the country out of iraq
      4. there aren't enough democrat senators to convict - so it would be a waste of time

      Notice - that nowhere on the list is a concern that he doesn't deserve it, or isn't guilty of more than enough to warrant it. He surely is.

    12. Re:To the author... by vigmeister · · Score: 1

      King George was a monarch, he wasn't elected You mean like Cartman becoming hall monitor?

        'Respect my authoritah!!!'

      Cheers!
      --
      Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
    13. Re:To the author... by Dhalka226 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Going backward for a moment...

      Ah, because most of them voted for Bush's War

      Even if they had not, being an idiot is, perhaps unfortunately, not what impeachment is for. Neither is starting a war that should not have been started.

      Now if there were some concrete proof that they knowingly discarded all conflicting evidence and fabricated their own in a deliberate attempt to force the country into a war they knew was unnecessary, there might be a case. Personally I would not doubt that is exactly what happened, but thus far the evidence of that is not the sort of thing you go to trial with. Particularly when the trial is, by its very nature, really an issue of politics.

      The Democrats now run Congress; why aren't they impeaching Bush?

      Because they do not have the votes to do so. They might be willing to fight the losing fight here if there was a strong popular opinion for it, but I do not believe there is even a majority of support. With things as polarized as they are, the Democrats are certainly not going to do something they have no support for and will undoubtedly fail at.

      Besides which, as sad as it is, Bush's presidency continuing on might be the best thing that could happen for the Democrats politically. They know for sure it is going to end in a year and a half. In the meantime it seems like every day that he is president erodes a little more support for the Republican party. If nothing else that gets the Democrats better support than a partisan impeachment would. Even if they were successful, that just moves Cheney into the Oval. Not exactly a staggering win.

      In short, I imagine the Democrats are happy to spend the remainder of the next year and a half feeding Bush as much rope as he would like. They know what he will do with it. The more Republican necks he slips in there before then, the happier the Dems are.

      And in a semi-off-topic, for-the-record sort of way:

      No, he committed perjury. Wasn't he disbarred for that?

      Yes and no. He was disbarred in Arkansas for a period of five years; I'm not sure if this is technically a disbarment or a suspension. He apparently then resigned from the Supreme Court bar before they had hearings over whether or not to disbar him from there as well. (Source)

    14. Re:To the author... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Slick Willy got a blowjob and it was the end of the world, King George starts a war, usurps our freedoms, potentially stole 2 elections...well...that doesn't make as good sensationalist dirty gossip story so noone cares.
       
      no, "slick willy" perjured. it had nothing to do with the act but while we're at it his attempts to make the incident of perjury as less of a crime than it was shows the man's true character. and if it's not a big deal why did he risk so much over so little?
       
      clinton also stole our freedoms. his attacks on the second amendment makes him a dangerous presence. not to say that bush shouldn't face some wrath but don't act like an attack on the second amendment isn't an attack on freedom. it's insulting and it shows that you're selective in who should be granted what freedom.
       
      and regardless if you like to see it clinton did attack afganistan. oddly enough it was a couple years later we were being attacked by the same terrorists. why doesn't it strike people as odd around here? as for iraq? yeah, it's a mess. but 70% of americans supported it pre-invasion. we can't just drop it and call it a failure, we now have an obligation.
       
      the elections? the first election was a debacle too but according to the logic that everyone uses to claim that bush stole the first election he clearly won the second one. why is it that you guys who howl over this shit can't come up with a standard and stick to it?
       
        American Spirit is all but dead. Noone cares or is too busy shoveling themselves out of debt in our insane buy now pay later, keeping up with the Jones' culture. Lets not forget our wonderful lawmakers passed that nice law to make sure those poor credit companies don't have their money stolen by dirty citizens declaring bankruptcy!
       
      that's the spirit. just give up. that's what we need. we need for mindless idiots to just pull a party line lever and dig us deeper into the hole.
       
      and bankruptcy? you get yourself into debt you should pay it. i've seen some of what passes as bankruptcy under the new laws and it is theft. people put themselves into that position. no one forced them. i'm sick and tired of hearing about how the card companies have taken advantage of people. if you're 18 and you can't make your own decisions then it's you who has the problem, not the credit card company.

    15. Re:To the author... by E.J.Thribb · · Score: 0

      So. Farewell then, Captain America.

      Your shield was also a frisbee.
      That is why you were my favourite of the famous five.

      Though come
      to think of it I never liked that rubber guy,
      and that rock man
      gave me the creeps.

      --
      (Age 17 1/2)
    16. Re:To the author... by larkost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually... Bill Clinton did not commit perjury. Arguably he did lie during a press conference, and he certainly did intend to deceive during that press conference, but "perjury" is a word with a strict legal definition, and it does not hold in this case.

      The details in the matter are that while under oath during a civil court case brought by Paula Jones then President Clinton was asked if he had had sex or an affair with Monica Lewinsky. He asked for clarification about what constituted sex and an affair, and sex was defined, BY THE PROSECUTOR, as penile-vaginal intercourse. He then answered that he had not had sex under this definition. I have never heard anyone say that Bill Clinton received more than a blow-job from Monica Lewinsky.

      So please stop using the word "perjury". It is simply wrong to use in this case. You can say he lied (people may disagree on that point), and you can certainly say that he intended to mislead people (that cannot be disputed), but he did not perjure himself.

      The subsequent disbarment was much more about the Whitewater investigations, and was highly politically charged. To the point that facts were mostly irrelevant in the case.

    17. Re:To the author... by sohare · · Score: 1

      "Slick Willy got a blowjob and it was the end of the world" No, he committed perjury. Wasn't he disbarred for that?

      You say perjury like the guy was lying about weapons of mass destruction. Please, he lied about being an adulterer. That's something cared about only by arrogant pricks who like to enforce their morals on others yet are just as culpable for the same dirty dealings.

    18. Re:To the author... by sohare · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Constitution itself was a coup d'eta. Go and read the Articles of Confederation and you'll see a document that gives a lot more power to the common man. Gotta love all that "greatest democracy on Earth" rhetoric.

    19. Re:To the author... by videomadeflesh · · Score: 2, Informative

      By killing off Captain America, aren't you letting the neocons win? I'd rather have seen an episode where Captain America punishes a perjuring White House aide... Then you need to read Black Summer http://www.blacksummer.net/ by Warren Ellis. A superhero snaps and kills the sitting American president. The varient cover is a ridiculously detailed picture of said hero in the oval office, with blood splattered on everything.
    20. Re:To the author... by el_munkie · · Score: 1


      You say perjury like the guy was lying about weapons of mass destruction. Please, he lied about being an adulterer. That's something cared about only by arrogant pricks who like to enforce their morals on others yet are just as culpable for the same dirty dealings.


      He committed perjury in a sexual harassment trial for a former subordinate. His behavior with his current set of subordinates was certainly pertinent to the case. Guess which party is responsible for sexual harassment laws?

      Yes, it was a witchhunt, but the President, of all people, should be expected to tell the truth when under oath. This applies to Bush, Clinton, and every president, past or present.

    21. Re:To the author... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      In short, I imagine the Democrats are happy to spend the remainder of the next year and a half feeding Bush as much rope as he would like. They know what he will do with it. The more Republican necks he slips in there before then, the happier the Dems are.

      Which only works if he doesn't nonsensically invade Iran.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    22. Re:To the author... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Newt Gingrich, incidentally, was having an affair during that whole thing.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    23. Re:To the author... by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

      I recommend that you acquaint yourself with the term "stovepiping", with how Cheney derailed the CIA investigation into Iran's nuclear programme by exposing the identity of the lead investegator, a woman we now all know as Valerie Plame. I also recommend that you pay attention to the speech again, to the way it cherry-picked to support a shaky assumption. You would also be wise to note that the intelligence Bush showed before the invasion was heavily redacted to make uncertainties seem like certainties: all caveats were removed, for example, and alternative interpretations deleted whole cloth.

      Mr. Bush sent American troops off on a wild goose chase and knowingly misled the public and lawmakers to do it. He squandered a victory in Afghanistan to support his Saddam obsession, and now our success there is evaporating. The callous disregard and exploitation of those who serve that this administration has shown is astounding.

      Captain America is truly dead.

    24. Re:To the author... by Kilraven · · Score: 1

      Noone cares or is too busy shoveling themselves out of debt in our insane buy now pay later, keeping up with the Jones' culture. But I thought life takes faster money?
      --
      I didn't want to leave this blank.
    25. Re:To the author... by Lil'wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Democrats now run Congress; why aren't they impeaching Bush?

      Three Words....

      Vice President Cheney

      I finally understand why he was chosen by Bush. It's a reverse Dan Quayle. No one wanted George H Bush removed because Dan Quayle was an idiot. Now no one want George W Bush removed because Dick Cheney is EVIL.

      --

      Truth: If it's not one thing, it's another

    26. Re:To the author... by mulhollandj · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you really think the Democrats are better then the Republicans? As far as I am concerned they are largely the same party. The only candidate who voted against the war and will get us out is Ron Paul.

    27. Re:To the author... by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

      Bravo, sir. I've not seen such chutzpah in presenting untruths in a long time.

      Indeed, you willingly parrot the fevered fantasies of the far right, spouting nonsense about restricting rights to own firearms with no proof whatsoever. Never mind that a Republican congress screamed bloody murder in 1999 at his attempts to get Osama bin Laden, never mind that the Bush transition team specifically reduced anti-terror activities simply because Clinton warned about terrorists. Oh, I could go on and on.

      But what's the point? Your callous, selfish frat-boy tone undermines your message so effectively I really don't see any need to rebut your baseless assertions any more.

    28. Re:To the author... by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

      "and noone is actually doing anything about it."

      So what exactly are _you_ doing about it? (besides bitching..)

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    29. Re:To the author... by Saiboogu · · Score: 1

      Newt Gingrich, incidentally, was having an affair during that whole thing. Newt Gingrich conned someone into sleeping with him? Ugh...
    30. Re:To the author... by thomas.galvin · · Score: 1

      The fact is, most people don't seem to care. King George was reelected. You can point to his low approval rating, but congress is even lower, and noone is actually doing anything about it.


      I would argue that their low approval rating stems directly from the fact that they haven't done anything to fix the mess Bush has created, which is why we elected them in the first place.
    31. Re:To the author... by Shelrem · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      Your argument is ridiculous.

      Considering they've only been able to pass symbolic, non-binding resolutions in defiance of the president,


      That's largely true. They haven't forced the president to change, short of not totally acquiescing to his every whim, but,

      one would think they'd jump at the chance to make such a loud (if ultimately inconsequential) statement.


      You them fault them for not doing something that you yourself agree would be ultimately inconsequential.

      They're not impeaching because it wouldn't accomplish anything, and like the Clinton impeachment, would probably turn favor against them. If it were politically advantageous, they'd do it, but they're simply not going to get a conviction, so why do it if it's not politically advantageous?
    32. Re:To the author... by N8F8 · · Score: 0
      When you grow up you have to make decisions. When you make decisions some people will disagree for the sake of disagreeing. Some folks will disagree because they truly believe differently. Either way someone has to make responsible decisions.

      As far as the whole Valerie Plame ordeal, you are making assumptions based on opinions not FACT. You have let the press brainwash you. If you were so concerned with such matters you would feel even more strongly about the leaks consistently coming from Congress over the last four years that have severely damaged out abilities to act covertly and collect intelligence. But those leaks don't fit your anti-Bush agenda.

      As far as Bush's speech, I have personal firsthand knowledge of the intelligence that speech was derived from and his conclusions are directly distilled from them. Again, you have let the press brainwash you to believe assertions not in evidence. You also have no understanding of how the systems that produced that intelligence work.

      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    33. Re:To the author... by Shotgun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Slick Willy got a blowjob and it was the end of the world,

      No. Slick Willy used the power of his office to sexually harass female employees with impunity. I've known men who were fired for speaking to the wrong woman and she reports that she felt 'uncomfortable'.
      Policemen beat the shit out of a drugged-up black man and get away scott free, until other black people start a riot. Then the feds step in and subject the policemen to double-jeopardy.
      Simpson kills his wife but beats the wrap because he has expensive lawyers.
      If you lay out of work and live off welfare, the goverment will give you crappy healthcare. If you work your ass off 70hrs a week, you can get your employer to give you crappy healthcare.

      American Spirit is all but dead. Noone cares or is too busy shoveling themselves out of debt in our insane buy now pay later, keeping up with the Jones' culture.

      No one cares because we all realize that the system is rigged. We might as well buy now because we'll pay later whether we buy now or not.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    34. Re:To the author... by Amani576 · · Score: 1

      This has got to be the simplest way to make clear what everyone else has been trying to say...
      Thank you...
      GR

      --
      "Paranoia is the flaw and gift of man. Heed its advice, but do not live by its will."
    35. Re:To the author... by megamerican · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, they just passed the torch to a new superhero, Stephen Colbert.

      "On March 12, 2007, the Editor-in-Chief of Marvel Comics, Joe Quesada, awarded Stephen Colbert the recently deceased superhero Captain America's shield. The letter to Stephen accompanying the shield stated that "the Star-Spangled Avenger has bequeathed... his indestructible shield to the only man he believed to have the red, white and blue balls to carry the mantle." Stephen promised to use the shield "only to fight for justice... and to impress girls." It was, in fact, one of only two full-sized prop shields which had previously been kept in the Marvel offices."

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    36. Re:To the author... by GiMP · · Score: 1

      King George was reelected.


      Don't you know by now? We've gotta wait until King George III comes around before we do anything about it!
    37. Re:To the author... by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      The Democrats now run Congress; why aren't they impeaching Bush?

      because it's the same shit, different day. People roll their eyes, but in most respects it is a one party system. An club of rich and elite people manipulating and being manipulated by the system.

      Maybe if we cared about what's going on in the world enough to resist the smoke screens that are blown in front our face something could be done. But as long as none of us are willing to write a nasty letter to the news media when they spend weeks covering Paris Hilton, then we probably deserve the crap representation that we get.

      And then there is the small minority of people who are at least somewhat interested in what's going on having little choice but to get their news from unreliable conservative talk radio. With some politicians wishing to dig up old laws to enforce balance in broadcasters of these talk shows (fairness doctrine), they act that there is always 2 sides to every issue. We can be certain that if the Fairness Doctrine goes through, only two sides will be represented, and the minority voice (like mine) will be completely left in the dust.

      As if the two sides aren't the same at their most fundamental level. Global Warming has to be a it-exists / doesn't-exist argument, rather than the obvious free market argument of how we could use the economics of it to our advantage to either maintain the status quo (first world countries being agricultural leaders) or create new trading markets that provide business with economic incentives to innovate and expand. (increasing the nation's wealth, if done correctly)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    38. Re:To the author... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, because most of them voted for Bush's War, and neither side wants to get into the habit of impeaching Presidents as they don't want theirs to be tossed out of office.

      Most idiotic comment I've seen in a long time. Maybe if they stopped breaking the law they wouldnt get impeached.

    39. Re:To the author... by joto · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was a witchhunt, but the President, of all people, should be expected to tell the truth when under oath.

      Only in America. In the rest of the world, nobody would have asked the president that question. It was a personal matter, and has absolutely nothing to do with his politics. Lying about it was a sensible move, and something just about any sensible person would do.

      On the other hand, deliberately deceiving the entire world that you are invading Iraq because they are hiding WMD (and they are somehow "evil" and related to 911), when in reality you do it to satisfy your buddies who are executives in oil- and arms-companies, is not something I find very presidential (or human, for that matter).

      If you will only have presidents with perfect façades, you are only going to get presidents who are perfect liers, and experts at covering things up. So either choose people who are human, or expect to be lied to.

    40. Re:To the author... by db32 · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to comment on the rest of your stupidity here. It is interesting to me that you think I am some liberal Clinton fanboi because I think Bush is worse. I think they both sucked, (well slick willy got sucked). But I think King George has done more damage to our credibility, our integrity, and our freedoms than any other world leader has in a long long time.

      As far as bankruptcy...grow the hell up and do the research. They have shown that the something like 90% or more of bankruptcies are not from irresponsible spending, it is from things like outrageous medical bills and other emergencies or disasters. The credit companies convinced our lawmakers that it was all irresponsible spending so they can block people from filing bankruptcy so they can still squeeze every dime out. This is all who extend credit, not just credit card companies by the way. Housing, cars, credit cards, everything. That isn't to say that there aren't people taking advantage of it, but hey, maybe the credit company shouldn't have given that person credit in the first place then huh? As for me, I refuse to deal with the credit card companies because it is such an insane scam with rates like 12-25% APR and then I have seen cards default as high as 89%! Just because people are dumb and poor at math does not justify taking advantage of them. Unless of course you think it is ok to scam seniors on medicare too just because they don't understand.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    41. Re:To the author... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the democrats are messed up idiots too, nobody is pretending otherwise. the whole government is totally bonkers..

    42. Re:To the author... by db32 · · Score: 1

      Maybe I am insensitive but I would say "sexually harass female employees with impunity" doesn't even begin to compare to "Shock and Awe" on the scale of "Wow that was fucked up".

      This is what I hate about this crap these days. Just because I think King George is a blight on our nation it somehow immediately means that I must be a liberal Clinton supporter. I think Clinton was an ass too, I just think on the grand scale of things he was far better than Bush. You know...there is the guy that takes candy from a baby, he is a bad guy...then there is the guy that takes the candy, chokes the baby, chops it up in a wood chipper, and then feeds it to his pit bull...that guy is worse than the guy who took the candy from the baby.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    43. Re:To the author... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were actually a couple who voted against the "war" and patriot act and such, but the two who are by far the only consistent representatives to vote that way are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. One is a democrat, one is a republican. For example, check the recent vote on the "Let's attack Iran if they don't play nice" non-binding resolution. Check and see who were the only two votes opposed to it.

    44. Re:To the author... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      You also have no understanding of how the systems that produced that intelligence work.

      I would say the answer to that is, "Poorly."

      We stuck ourselves in a stupid war. Regardless of why, that it was mismanaged is glaringly obvious. That no one saw it coming I find frankly impossible to believe, as it is obvious that Bush Sr. clearly understood very well what would happen if we took over Iraq, and I find it hard to believe that a goodly number of senior officers were incapable of learning the historical lessons from afganistan and vietnam.

      That it is so clearly obvious that they did not see it coming suggests very strongly that they were listening only to things that they wanted to hear, and that they would do that with regards to the prosecution of the war suggests that they would do the same with regards to the evidence they used to justify the war in the first place.

      During the lead up to Iraq, I heard a lot of people quoting historical data, things that we "knew" the Iraqi's had in their arsenal. I heard some unproven testimony about fissionables. I heard a lot of talk about questionable links to terrorist groups. Damn near every bit of that was inaccurate. If it wasn't malicious, it was pathetic, and it sure as hell wasn't enough to justify this moronic war.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    45. Re:To the author... by Shajenko42 · · Score: 1

      The Democrats now run Congress; why aren't they impeaching Bush?
      The Democrats barely control Congress, and it takes more votes than they have to impeach and convict. The Republicans can block an impeachment bill from going through (and I thought they hated the fillibuster!).
    46. Re:To the author... by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      slick Willy could have done tings to prevent the war in the first place. Bush Sr. had the correct intelligence. But Bill was more into partying and screwing around then preventing the situation we are in now. The Cole happened under Billy's watch. That should have been a clear sign of things to come. All he did was shoot a few guided missiles.

    47. Re:To the author... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if you vote, but you seem to be part of the problem. The problem is that no one ever changes their party. They think the other one is evil. That allows members of both parties to take advantage of the power that they get. If everyone in the country switched parties 95% of congress and the senate would probably be voted out because of all of the gerrymandering that has gone on over the years.

    48. Re:To the author... by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Newt Gingrich [msn.com] conned someone into sleeping with him? Ugh...

      I think you misspelled "paid" there.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    49. Re:To the author... by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

      This is what I hate about this crap these days. Just because I think King George is a blight on our nation it somehow immediately means that I must be a liberal Clinton supporter. I think Clinton was an ass too, I just think on the grand scale of things he was far better than Bush.


      Aaaaaaaaaaaaa-fricking-MEN. I have enough hate for both sides; it's just at the moment the scale is in danger of tipping over. Hell, he could have ACTUALLY had Vince Foster killed AND fucked the corpse while singing "The Internationale" and the scale wouldn't move a hair. Who knew we had it so good back then.
      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    50. Re:To the author... by N8F8 · · Score: 1
      You listened to the press who know very little at all and warp what little they do know to fit their agenda. You also never bother really thinking what would have happened had we not gone to war. What I can guarantee you is that if he had not gone to war and Saddam was still in power the lefty press and Democrats would be condemning Bush's inaction. Hell, they were doing that before the war too. The press propped up the WMD strawman to have something to punch and you fell for it.

      Here's a challenge. Find me one verifiable misrepresentation or lie directly quoted from a member of the Executive branch or military pertaining to Iraq.

      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    51. Re:To the author... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read the parent, he actually DIDN'T commit perjury. That little fact seems to escape most people.

    52. Re:To the author... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, deliberately deceiving the entire world that you are invading Iraq because they are hiding WMD As a non-american, I'm pretty sure very few people were deceived, certainly not the "entire world".

    53. Re:To the author... by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Now if there were some concrete proof that they knowingly discarded all conflicting evidence and fabricated their own in a deliberate attempt to force the country into a war they knew was unnecessary, there might be a case.

      You think the burden of proof when it comes to aggressive war should be on those who *don't* want to start one?

      That those who did start it can get away with it as long as they can plausibly deny they knew all the evidence that we still haven't seen never existed?

      Fairly low bar for the leaders of the free world.

    54. Re:To the author... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Slick Willy got a blowjob and it was the end of the world,

      Uh, no. Slick Willy LIED UNDER OATH (it's called "perjury") and that was the end of the world. I don't know what crazy world you live in, but I think it's a pretty big deal when the President lies under oath, regardless of how petty the thing he was lying about.

    55. Re:To the author... by Guuge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I remember back in 2000 when people like you were saying that Bush was such a wonderful guy. They would rave about how Bush would clean up the culture in both parties. Now you've come back and are saying the same thing about Ron Paul. Another Texas Republican, another teary evangelist. Why should anyone believe you?

    56. Re:To the author... by wezeldog · · Score: 1

      The Democrats now run Congress; why aren't they impeaching Bush?
      President Dick Cheney?
    57. Re:To the author... by belligerent0001 · · Score: 0

      *SIGH* Why is it that everyone seems to think that Bush "lied" about WMDs? The WHOLE FRIGGAN WORLD warned us that Saddam WOULD use chemical weapons if we invaded. the Egyptians, the Saudis, the Russians, the Germans, even the by-god communist French said that we should prepare our civilians for the horrors that we would see on TV because of chemical weapons. SADDAM'S OWN STAFF said that they had a stock pile of chemical weapons. What about the 3 chemical IED that were found? or how about the mobile labs that were found and had traces of anthrax found on them? I guess those truths are just a little too convenient. As has been mentioned so many times before, if there was a real conspiracy to wage war against Iraq, why didn't GW just have some WMD's planted instead of saying that he listened to the intell that was handed to him and acted accordingly.
      Just a thought, what if Saddam had WMDs and used them or sold them to "Mr. I Americans?" and they were used on us? then the cry would be "why didn't Bush protect us?" and would would have lost perhaps hundreds of thousands of live. Anyone and I mean ANYONE who doesn't take the threat of WMDs seriously, has the IQ of a radish and should be killed, eaten, and replaced so that their DNA can no longer contaminate the gene pool.
      At least Bush, despite all of his faults, has at least DONE SOMETHING when attacked by the Jihadis. The ass clown who perjured himself, which as I recall IS a misdemeanor (all part of that High Crimes and misdemeanor thing) did NOTHING after the peaceful Islamics detonated a bomb under the WTC, did NOTHING, after our embassy in Kenya was bombed, except letting Bin Laden go when he was captured but a foreign government, did NOTHING, when the Cole was bombed, did NOTHING.
      Lets look at the record...Clinton 3 bombing, 1 released terrorist...Bush 911 attacks, tens or thousands dead terrorists and a couple thousand imprisoned....Looks like bush is doing a better job to me.
      The kind of people who try to claim "illegal war" or "blood for oil" or what ever liberal nonsense the libs like to spew, that would have turned their neighbors over to British troops in the 1700's. The same kind of people who have never had to really work to stay alive, or bleed for what they believe in because it is much easy to look at the smallest part of the picture and claim that the color is wrong. If they really felt so strongly about it they should go to I-hate-america-stan and Issue protest there. I'm sure they would welcome you, or at least stone you to death.

      --
      "...a civilian some of the time, a soldier part of the time and a patriot all of the time." -Brig. Gen. James Drain
    58. Re:To the author... by db32 · · Score: 1

      We had a president that "didn't inhale" (and his interview where he explains he knew it was the dumbest thing he could possibly say, but his interviews are all 'scripted' and he didn't have an answer prepared for that). Jogged to McDs every day. Played Jazz. We had a president that liked to get high.

      NOW! We have a guy that drank alot and did alot of blow, and then goes on with this youthful indescression crap while talking about how hard on drugs he is. Has out of control drunken daughters, has a druggy niece (I think it was Jebs daughter). Thinks he is the king of the world and is above the law. Likes to fight. Can't talk (and I'm more and more convinced it isn't that he just isn't a good speaker, I think he really is that dumb).

      Lessons to be learned here. Just like in normal day to day life your potheads are NOWHERE NEAR the same type of problem causing criminals as your boozers or your coke heads.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    59. Re:To the author... by rentmej · · Score: 1

      You have to give George one thing, he got a lot of people interested in politics.

      The best thing, for those in power, is to have a populace that thinks there is nothing they can do. A people who are so tired dealing with their problems they won't deal with the world's. To condition people to be so self absorbed, that they can't even see the actions of others.

      When you have Tony Snow lying on tape and the only person who calls them on it is John Stewart, there's a problem.

      When you have Dick putting hundreds of people in every sector of government, and it's only been in the last few that people have finally started to note what he has been doing(i.e. why these people in those places), you have a problem.

      We need more people working to make changes and speaking out and fewer just pissed off that other's haven't done enough.

      Also, if people don't know what lead up to Cap's death, please, at least read Wikipedia. We just have to hope that more people can get others interested enough to pay attention.

      --
      0100001001100101011010010110111001100111 0100100001110101011011010110000101101110
    60. Re:To the author... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Saddam would still be in power? Who cares? Christ we put him in power to do exactly what he did: prevent a theocratic state from forming in Iraq. We didn't give a damn about his genocide when he was actually doing it, back in the 90's, so it's disingenuous to get pissy about it now.

      As for the rest:

      "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." (emphasis mine)

      Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

      "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

      George W. Bush September 12, 2002

      Both quoted from the ultra liberal "Whitehouse.gov" political site...No doubt they were planted there. At the very least those are misrepresentations, because there damn well was doubt, and those facilities were actually not used for chemical weapons at that time.

      Ring led by the goddamn media? Lot of people were ring led by the media, to think that the war was going to be quick and painless. To think that our reasons for going to war were good, to think that the dumbasses in the government knew what the hell they were talking about, and the dem's are just as much to blame; the only dems who didn't vote for war were the goddamn peaceniks. Fucking H.Clinton has quotes almost as damning, as does that weenie Kerry.

      You need to open your eyes. It was a stupid war to get into, it was prosecuted in a stupid manner, and it will be prolonged indefinitely by the government in a desperate attempt to cover their bleeding asses with a flag of victory, and there is no goddamn hope of anything decent coming out of it unless the fucking people stop acting like fucking robots and following the goddamn party lines.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    61. Re:To the author... by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      "Only in America. In the rest of the world, nobody would have asked the president that question. It was a personal matter, and has absolutely nothing to do with his politics. Lying about it was a sensible move, and something just about any sensible person would do."

      So in the rest of the world if a past subordinate accused the president of sexual harassment they can not expect an investigation including current similar behavior? that does not say much for the resot of the world.

      --
    62. Re:To the author... by N8F8 · · Score: 1
      I said "misrepresentation or lie". In each case you would have to prove that the person intentionally lied or misrepresented the facts. Being wrong isn't the same. He made those statements due to intelligence briefing he was given that came to the conclusion that those statements were correct. Read the 2004 ISG final report to get a taste of that the President and Vice president were being told by the intel community and UN inspectors.

      You need to open your eyes and realize that we are in an ideological world war and the other side doesn't give a crap if you want to fight or not. Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Lebanon, Syria, Philippines, Chad, Bali, Spain, Russia, Denmark..on and on and on it spreads and you stuff your head down a hole in the sand.

      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    63. Re:To the author... by Elf-friend · · Score: 1

      What's more insidious: Bush didn't pick Cheney - Cheney picked himself. Bush appointed Cheney to choose a VP for him, and Cheney announced that he had chosen himself.

      It's Cheney who needs to be impeached. It's now clear that he's the one running the government, not Bush. Decisions he makes are being acted on without the appropriate department heads even knowing about it (e.g., the torture memo, which then-Secretary Powell only found out about two years later - through the news media). If Cheney were to go, then the road to Bush would be clear if they need to go that far. Congress gets to appoint the new VP, remember.

      That's not to make excuses for Bush, who is an absolute incompetent, and whose obsession with Saddam Hussein and familial honour got us into this whole Iraq mess. His father knew what would have happened if they had marched into Baghdad, but Jr. couldn't get it through his head that his father wasn't a failure for making peace.

      As far as Captain America goes, we can only hope the national climate returns to one where Marvel thinks they can bring him back. That's gonna take a while, though, I think.

    64. Re:To the author... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Kinda got away from me there, but my point was to why nobody seems to give a flyin' fuck anymore.

      Clinton's impeachment wasnt' over squirting on an intern. It was about presenting a bald face lie to judge and jury. The people saw that he was above the law and walked away from it. Same with Simpson. Same with the Rodney King Beaters, and the rioters afterwards. Recently, it is the same thing with Paris Hilton.

      Either we have the rule of law, or we don't. It's not a new tale. It's what brought down King Arthur. People don't seem to care, because everyone sees that justice isn't blind and how you're treated by the court system depends more on your lawyers salary than your citizenship; furthermore, the people are right. If you're going to get smacked down whether you do wrong or no, you might as well have some fun.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    65. Re:To the author... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh I know it can't be proven that they knowingly lied, though it's obvious that they were hugely incompetent, and I would be stunned if you could ever get an intelligent intelligence assessment that made a blanket statement and insisted that there were no doubts. It doesn't work that way. They lied to themselves.

      As for the "war" you're referring to, I am assuming that you're talking about the titular "War on Terra" that's been going on since the 70's, is still going on today, and will be going on for generations to come.

      Here is the thing: You can't win a war against an idea. You can't shoot it. You can't scare it. But we go to Iraq and we give solid proof to every Muslim in the region that what their mullahs and imam's tell them about the US is absolutely true, and we create a bumper crop of future terrorists blaming us for everything bad in their lives that stemmed from our invasion.

      Make no mistake. We made things worse, and we're going to be paying for it for decades. They hold grudges forever in that part of the world; they pass them down from father to son, mother to daughter.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    66. Re:To the author... by db32 · · Score: 1

      Uhm...lying about squirting on an intern is not even the same thing as lying about starting a war. Now I do agree that its an understanding of the people that we are screwed by the legal system no matter what happens since the laws are just more things to hold against us and never to protect us.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    67. Re:To the author... by AgentSmith · · Score: 1

      You keep talking about have intelligence reports and having information. You wanna pass those golden nuggets to us? Because so far I haven't seen anything that makes me feel any more confident about the decisions Bush has made. The only competent people in the Iraqi theater are the men and women actually fighting the war. With Howdy-Doody at the helm it's a wonder the situation isn't even worse! He and Cheney have "removed" almost anyone who is NOT a yes man. Those generals and advisors left that aren't Yes Men must have lost their tongues from having to bite them so often.

      Honestly, I've talked with family members, buddies, co-workers, and acquaitences who have served in Iraq. The opinion is mixed, but when you tell those guys they have to leave their families or can't go home because they have to go ON A THIRD TOUR WITHOUT EVEN A MONTH LEAVE. YOU TELL ME WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO THINK?!! I hear the same stories my from uncles who went to Vietnam being replayed in Iraq. Sure. This man's Army. Navy Adventure. Up into the Wild Blue Yonder. Love the Core. Semper Fi. Honor . Courage and Duty. These things mean something to the soldiers that follow it. It's sad because they don't mean anything to the people above them running it.

      If you truly are in the military. I have some respect for you. But have no illusion I have no respect for our Commander-in-Chief when his transgressions are there for everyone to see.

      The idea of Captain America is dead. Not by a Sniper's bullet, but stabbed in the back by every corrupt politician and every citizen who doesn't vote.

    68. Re:To the author... by N8F8 · · Score: 1

      "Make no mistake. We made things worse" now who is making blanket statements?

      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    69. Re:To the author... by N8F8 · · Score: 1

      I'm not particularly fond of politicians either but I'm enough of a realist to know that in this world you sometimes have to make decisions where every response is a potential negative. I don't agree with every decision but I've seen enough firsthand evidence to convince me that other alternatives would have had a worse outcome. Tell me what you would have done? Did you even know what Saddam was doing by 2002? He was starving 3/4 of his own population to make the US and UK look bad. Paying off the families of suicide bombers in Palestine and naming streets in Baghdad after them, violating the no-fly zone and shooting at our planes, spending millions in the Arabic press to make himself look like a Islamic martyr against the infidels, bribing UN officials to look the other way on illegal oil sales, blaming the US for the supposed deaths of millions of Iraqi infants fro starvation while building dozens of HUGE palaces around the country, lobbying OPEC to raise oil prices to force the UN to drop sanctions, suppressing Kurds and other minorities and torturing dissidents, and on and on. Ok, since you know better, what would you have done?

      --
      "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    70. Re:To the author... by flynns · · Score: 1

      You, uh. You need to review your source material, because, well, you're flat out wrong. I wouldn't mind reading your post again with citations instead of the version of events you keep in your head to protect you from the scary liberals.

      --
      'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
    71. Re:To the author... by Dave+Parrish · · Score: 1

      So let's just take a look at the last paragraph, since the rest has been done to death.

      First you take a stab at our "buy now, pay later" culture, which you seem to think is wrong (and I agree). Then you immediately try to defend everyone guilty of doing that by using the term "dirty citizens" sarcastically.

      So are you... For it, or against it? You've got to pick a side, there. Personally I'm against idiots spending more money than they have, and then declaring bankruptcy to get out of it, so I'm happy they changed the law, there.

      You, on the other hand, seem to dislike people doing it, but you also want to defend their ability to do so. Like I say: Pick a side.

    72. Re:To the author... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Am I sending people to war? No. Did I claim to be an intelligence analyst? No. I'm just a random guy on Slashdot, and I'm entitled to my opinion.

      I find it amusing how you view my opinions with such extreme skepticism, but believe everything that comes out of the White House is 100% fact. Try pointing some of that nit-pickery where it will do some good.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    73. Re:To the author... by belligerent0001 · · Score: 0

      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html has a nice little write up from May 04 regarding chemical weapons. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/21/iraq/mai n554912.shtml speaks to the trailers I will have to re dig up the sources regarding Warnings about chemical weapons from both the region and Europe. Anything else I can research for your lazy ass?

      --
      "...a civilian some of the time, a soldier part of the time and a patriot all of the time." -Brig. Gen. James Drain
    74. Re:To the author... by WrongMonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ron Paul has a consistent voting record going back thirty years. He's one of the very few congressmen who didn't vote for the PATRIOT ACT or the authorization of force in Iraq. He personally doesn't accept Medicare or Medicaid because he doesn't believe in them, but instead does the work for free or lowered payment. You may not agree for everything he stands for, I don't, but there's no question that the guy is authentic.

    75. Re:To the author... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      No one cares because we all realize that the system is rigged. We might as well buy now because we'll pay later whether we buy now or not.

      This sort of mindset is exactly what got us into this situation in the first place.
      Thanks for doing your part to make it worse.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    76. Re:To the author... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Because Ron Paul believes in you. Ron Paul! The only candidate with two first names!

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    77. Re:To the author... by flynns · · Score: 1
      I hate to do this, because it takes up a lot of my time arguing politics on the internet, and, well, you know what they say about arguing on the Internets... But here we go.

      Let's look at the Fox News article, your first source. It's talking about two artillery shells that were found as part of an IED. Scroll about halfway down.

      Kimmitt said the shell belonged to a class of ordnance that Saddam's government said was destroyed before the 1991 Gulf war. Experts believe both the sarin and mustard gas weapons date back to that time.

      "It was a weapon that we believe was stocked from the ex-regime time and it had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell set up to explode like an ordinary IED and basically from the detection of that and when it exploded, it indicated that it actually had some sarin in it," Kimmitt said.


      So what we're looking at is actually an old, unused artillery shell from the Iraq-Iran war back in the '70s and '80s. That they lost.

      The article also included information about some mustard gas that was discovered about two weeks before the writing of this article.

      Tests conducted by the Iraqi Survey Group (search) -- a U.S. organization searching for weapons of mass destruction -- and others concluded the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective."


      So essentially what we're looking at are small abouts of improperly stored and/or misplaced chemical weapons from 25-30 years ago. Hardly the imminent threat we were "warned" about. This isn't evidence of a threat; this is evidence of gross incompetence by the former Iraqi regime Thing is, we were wrong about the WMDs. The question is, were we wrong on purpose? Or wrong by our -own- sheer incompetence?

      --

      Let's have a look at the second source. We have an ABC article regarding a second suspected mobile weapons laboratory, discovered in or around Mosul. The existence of these mobile weapons labs was publicly introduced by Colin Powell in his speech to the UN in February of '03.

      Funny thing about that. Turns out they weren't really weapons trailers. They were actually just labs making hydrogen for weather balloons.

      Even better than that... We knew that before we went in.

      Everyone knew. All the way up to the Director of the CIA and higher.

      At best we were horribly, incompetently wrong. At best.
      --
      'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
    78. Re:To the author... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Nope. Dennis Kucinich also voted against the war.

      Even with the odds stacked against him, he's still running.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    79. Re:To the author... by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      Well first you need enough evidence to start an impeachment trial. So far the Democrats seem to lack that. At least they had that blue dress against Clinton with the stain in it that matched his DNA. What do they really have on Bush that is not based on opinions and hearsay?

      Captain America died, because Liberal Democrats forgot about due process and innocent until proven guilty for a US President. Liberals want to impeach Bush without due process.

      Captain America was a true Liberal Democrat, he fought the Civil War against super hero registration because he thought it was the right thing to do. To protect liberties. Instead in the end he learned that his tactics had destroyed several buildings in Manhattan and his people murdered a lot of people to fight Iron Man's group. Captain America saw that while he won the battle, he lost the argument. Super Heroes went on a rampage and did more damage than Stanford because they resisted registration. When that happened Steve Rogers took off his mask because he was not worthy to be Captain America any more. He saw that sacrificing a little liberty had provided security and that sacrificing security for liberty causes mass murder. This parallels 911 in granting liberty to the 911 hijackers allowed them to mass murder people. Liberalism is murdering this great nation, and soon we shall be like the Roman Empire and fall because we value liberty over security and the economy. Well will either all mostly die, or the nation will fail and fall apart.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    80. Re:To the author... by joto · · Score: 1

      So in the rest of the world if a past subordinate accused the president of sexual harassment they can not expect an investigation including current similar behavior?

      In some parts of the world, sure. But in the civilized parts of the world, it means that if somebody accuses the president of sexual harassment, it will be investigated quietly, and only made a big deal out of it, if the president is actually guilty.

      that does not say much for the resot of the world.

      You mean it's bad that the rest of the world puts the best interests of the country, the president, and his past lover, above the interests of political opponents trying to create a scandal?

    81. Re:To the author... by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      In some parts of the world, sure. But in the civilized parts of the world, it means that if somebody accuses the president of sexual harassment, it will be investigated quietly, and only made a big deal out of it, if the president is actually guilty.

      And if he lies during that investigation? and as for 'were descreete' After the whole Charles and Camilla thing you have to be kidding..

      --
    82. Re:To the author... by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but using the Wikipedia as a citation? And then because said article doesn't contain the word Iran you consider that proof that she wasn't monitoring it? Either you are naive or dishonest, and I sincerely hope it's the former.

      For the record, sir, your insinuation that I was brainwashed because I choose to read news sources you disagree with (in German and French as well as English) is merely insulting. I have taken the time to read the declassified reports, and the speech was dishonest. Even worse was how Colin Powell was fed faulty information and cut out of the loop, turning a once-good man into a dupe.

      Now go try to intimidate somebody else. I never liked blowhards like you when I was in the Army, and I do not like you now.

    83. Re:To the author... by joto · · Score: 1

      And if he lies during that investigation?

      That depends.

      1. So what if he lies. The investigators are out there to find out if he harassed Paula Jones. They should be able to do that whether or not he lies about other parts of his private life. Sure, it's bad lying about stuff, but most people will understand why the president lied here, and in any case, it's not like lying about WMD.
      2. There are ways of asking, and making sure the answer to such a question, remains confident. In that case, the president wouldn't have to lie.
      3. Whether it was relevant to ask that question in the first place, is also a good question. If asking the question puts the president at risk of perjury, you'd better be damned sure that you really need to ask that question. If it's a question about a personal matter unrelated to Paula Jones, I'd say it's best not to ask that question (especially in a situation where the president is under oath, in front of representatives from the press, and a gazillion tv-viewers).

      and as for 'were descreete' After the whole Charles and Camilla thing you have to be kidding..

      I can't seem to remember anyone asking Charles difficult questions, under oath, during the aftermath of the Camillagate scandal. This was, as far as I can see, a phenomenon entirely created by the press. Besides, Charles and Camilla were probably lovers even before he married Diana. Which is a tad more difficult to keep secret, than a short affair with an intern.

    84. Re:To the author... by db32 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't all that stuff make you glad that we spent so much money supporting him? I mean those pictures of Rummy and crew all smiling shaking hands and shit is just classic. Oh wait...Rummy was involved in supporting him...and now rummy is involved in Bush's "crusade" (wonderful choice of words king geroge). No this this has been an unmitigated cluster fuck from day 1. I have been there, and everything is stamped with KBR...which is a halliburton company...which *shock* is still paying their former front man Dick Cheney! This whole fucking thing in Iraq has been a horseshit story from day one and fucking reaks of conflicts of interest and personal agendas. I mean it was this same crew of asshats that authored that document that says "America must fight a 2 front war and win both decisively so secure our place at the top of the world". Afghanistan, justified, planned, and up until Iraq was handled fairly well. Iraq, unjustified, unplanned, and a total fucking disaster from the onset, with every top military man worth a shit or with an ounce of integrity either "quitting" or getting outright fired. When Congress turned Dem and there was a threat to the agenda they threw rummy out to the wolves in a hurry and replaced him with Gates. That wonderful jackass responsible for the Iran Contra business. Yup...we have the most honest and correct government just trying to do the right thing in that part of the world. If you honestly believe that bullshit I have some nice beachfront property to sell you in Utah.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    85. Re:To the author... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Personally I'm against idiots spending more money than they have, and then declaring bankruptcy to get out of it, so I'm happy they changed the law, there.

      Oh? We should have more sympathy for credit companies that constantly send offers to those with horrible credit ratings, those on the verge of bankruptcy? And once the consumer does declare bankruptcy, send them even more credit offers since they can't declare bankruptcy again for 7 years? It's like taking your alcoholic buddy out to the bar, keep putting drinks in his face, and then acting shocked - shocked! when he finally takes up up on that first drink, has a few more, and then crashes his car on the way home.

      Besides, the vast majority of people who do end up declaring bankruptcy don't do it out of bad spending and laziness, but because of a job loss, accident or illness. No, the consumer bankruptcy bill wasn't about stopping a revolving door, it was about giving a big old hand job to the financial industry.

    86. Re:To the author... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. Slick Willy LIED UNDER OATH (it's called "perjury")

      No, it's not. The judge ruled that whatever happened with Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case. And if it's not relevant, it's not perjury.

      I don't know what crazy world you live in, but I think it's a pretty big deal when the President lies under oath, regardless of how petty the thing he was lying about.

      No, it's a pretty big deal when someone engages in a witch hunt on you with no probable cause. The reason we have courts and put people under oath is to see if a crime was committed, not make them jump through hoops until you can bust them for "perjury" even though there was no wrongdoing. If there were real justice in this country, Starr and the Republicans in Congress would have served nice jail terms for malicious prosecution.

    87. Re:To the author... by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      E.J.Thribb doesn't read /. If he did, the Private eye wouldn't be so technologically illiterate (despite this I still have a subscription; to both). However you do a bloody good impression, but there are obviously no private eye reading moderators on duty, so you can have my imaginary +1 Funny. ;p

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    88. Re:To the author... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you vote, but you seem to be part of the problem. The problem is that no one ever changes their party.

      No, the problem is when people don't demand accountability from members of the party. Delay was going to be indited, so Republicans changed the ethics rules to stay on as majority leader. Republicans were ready to impeach Nixon in the 70's. But at least Nixon was competent - Bush has been totally incompetent and done far, far worse than Nixon, and Republicans still defend him to the death.

    89. Re:To the author... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      slick Willy could have done tings to prevent the war in the first place. Bush Sr. had the correct intelligence. But Bill was more into partying and screwing around then preventing the situation we are in now. The Cole happened under Billy's watch. That should have been a clear sign of things to come. All he did was shoot a few guided missiles.

      It is utterly fascinating to see those who insisted that Clinton's actions against Al Qaeda were nothing more than "wagging the dog" now fault him for not doing enough.

    90. Re:To the author... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      No. Slick Willy used the power of his office to sexually harass female employees with impunity.

      Hm. Wild, unsubstantiated claims much?

    91. Re:To the author... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Clinton's impeachment wasnt' over squirting on an intern.

      Right.

      It was about presenting a bald face lie to judge and jury.

      Wrong. It was about find a reason, any reason, to try and remove Clinton from office. Investigations and re-investigations of Whitewater and Vince Foster didn't work, so they put him in front of a judge and asked him enough irrelevant questions until they could try and pin a perjury case on him. But even if he lied about Monica till the sun came down, it wasn't perjury since the judge ruled that whatever happened between Bill and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case. And if it's not relevant, it's not perjury.

      The people saw that he was above the law and walked away from it.

      No, people saw that Republicans in Congress were trying to undo the 1992 and 1996 elections, and walked away from them. We have courts and put people under oath to find out of a crime was committed, not make someone jump through hoops until you try and nail them for "perjury" even if there was no crime. Clinton shouldn't have been impeached, Starr and Congressional Republicans should have been sent to jail for malicious prosecution.

    92. Re:To the author... by Dave+Parrish · · Score: 1

      So far as the "taking an alcoholic to the bar" analogy, maybe people should simply have a better grasp on reality. If you don't have any money, guess what you do... Don't spend it! As far as I'm aware, there's no such thing as a "spendaholic" so I'm under no obligation to feel sympathy for people who go blow all their money as soon as they get it, and still haven't spent enough.

      As far as the accident/job loss/illness part goes... Sad as all that is (and, believe me, I understand what you're getting at, and I'm not trying to pass it off as no big deal), it's like homeless people stealing food. We're not going to make stealing legal just because a minority more-or-less have to do it to survive, so I don't really see why this should be any different.

    93. Re:To the author... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Go and read the Articles of Confederation

      Yes, what about that absolute disaster should he know about?

      see a document that gives a lot more power to the common man.

      If by "common man" you mean "those with money, connections, business interests, or those with the wherewithal to hire their own attorney" then yes.

    94. Re:To the author... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      When you grow up you have to make decisions.

      Maybe when you grow up, you 14%ers can pull your heads out and stop being tools for an incompetent liar.

    95. Re:To the author... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      He committed perjury

      No, he didn't. The point of courts and putting people under oath is to see if a crime was committed, not create a crime by making the person jump through hoops until they lie about something. The judge ruled that whatever happened between Bill and Monica was irrelevant to the Jones case. And if it's not relevant, it's not perjury.

      Yes, it was a witchhunt, but the President, of all people, should be expected to tell the truth when under oath.

      Yes, it was a witchunt, and thus noneoftheirfuckingbusiness. And if it's noneofyourfuckingbusiness, whether or not the person is lying to you is irrelevant. Clinton shouldn't have been impeached, Starr and the Republicans in Congress should have been sent to jail for malicious prosecution.

    96. Re:To the author... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      So far as the "taking an alcoholic to the bar" analogy, maybe people should simply have a better grasp on reality. f you don't have any money, guess what you do... Don't spend it!

      It's interesting that in your reality, the old "stand up and take responsibility for your actions" only applies to the little guy. I made the alcoholic analogy because while your buddy is at fault for drinking too much, you are also at fault for knowing he's an alcoholic and giving him drinks anyway. The person who outspends his income is at fault for living beyond his means, but lending companies that keep sending him offers are also at fault because they know damn well that he can't afford more credit cards yet keep sending them anyway.

      As far as the accident/job loss/illness part goes... Sad as all that is (and, believe me, I understand what you're getting at, and I'm not trying to pass it off as no big deal), it's like homeless people stealing food. We're not going to make stealing legal just because a minority more-or-less have to do it to survive, so I don't really see why this should be any different.

      Um, minority? Try 90%.

    97. Re:To the author... by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 1

      but congress is even lower, and noone is actually doing anything about it.

      Congress' approval is always low, however constituents for the most part view their individual representatives higher than they do Congress as a whole.

    98. Re:To the author... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I agree. Now, use the frog-in-boiling-water analogy. Bush gets away with it, because Clinton led the way after Nixon made the first crack.

      Once everyone sees Lady Justice peaking under the blindfold, everyone gets jaded real quick.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  4. How about... by superpulpsicle · · Score: 3, Funny

    How about burying real politicians instead of Capt. America.

    1. Re:How about... by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Funny

      "How about burying real politicians instead of Capt. America."

      How about burying lawyers instead of Capt. America.

      Fixed it for you.

      A busload full of lawyers crashed outsided of town. When the emergency crews arrived on the scene, they found that the local townfolk had already buried all the lawyers. Surveying the wreckage, one EMT said "the crash doesn't look that bad. Didn't any of them survive?" "Well, some of them SAID they were still alive, but you know how them lawyer fellas like to lie."

    2. Re:How about... by WingedEarth · · Score: 1

      Don't let a few bad apples ruin the name of all lawyers. Some of us really want to help our communities and serve our clients ethically and faithfully. The problem is that a lot of scumbags go to law school and ruin the reputation of the legal field, but we're supposed to be the most loyal and most ethical people in the country. That's our duty.

    3. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. I won't let the 99.9% of the bad apples taint my view of the 0.1% of the honest, hardworking, good lawyers.

      Law is not a field one goes into when they want to be respected for their choice of profession.

    4. Re:How about... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      There are too many lawyers. The first step to fixing the bad rep is to fix the system so that there are fewer instances where a lawyer is needed. Make all divorces a simple civil procedure, no more complicated than the marriage was. Ditto for custody, alimony, and child support. Use the small-claims process for all cases below, say, $100,000.00. Get rid of stupid laws that criminalize a lot of activity that is really a social problem.

      There - now you've gotten rid of 90% of the demand ... that should get rid of 90% of the problem.

      And before you say this is impractical, lawyers said the same thing about small-claims courts when they were first instituted, and about no-fault divorce, and administrative decisions for child support (as opposed to judgments).

    5. Re:How about... by WingedEarth · · Score: 1

      You're right. In many situations, a standardized or simplified system can replace the need for lawyers.

  5. ok? by Gamer13258 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    1)Is this really news? 2)I know a lot of people really enjoy comics and all, and maybe it was a reflection of the USA or something (I don't know. I don't read these comics so maybe I shouldn't be talking), but it's still just a comic and just another twist in a storyline. The creative process will continue on and still produce some kind of literature that the comic's fan base will still love.

    1. Re:ok? by Broken+scope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      News for NERDS! I think this fits the bill rather well, considering he is one of the oldest comic characters I can think of.

      --
      You mad
    2. Re:ok? by Ngarrang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1)Is this really news? 2)I know a lot of people really enjoy comics and all, and maybe it was a reflection of the USA or something (I don't know. I don't read these comics so maybe I shouldn't be talking), but it's still just a comic and just another twist in a storyline. The creative process will continue on and still produce some kind of literature that the comic's fan base will still love. Comic books should be taken as serious a form of art expression as any book, painting or sculpture. The values displayed, the characters, their flaws and strengths...they are reflections of society and its desires and dreams. Even the most fantastical of the comic books contains truths of human nature that we face every day.
      --
      Bearded Dragon
    3. Re:ok? by GrayCalx · · Score: 1

      Comic books should be taken as serious a form of art expression as any book, painting or sculpture.

      When was the last time you saw an article on /. about this fantastic new sculpture that is really a political commentary on international trade treaties?

      I love comics too, that doesn't mean I need a pointless article about them on my "news" site.

    4. Re:ok? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The image of him punching out Adolph Hitler in 1941 is still one of the iconic images in comic history. Personally, I prefer the more embarrassing stuff that Marvel later try to bury (like the issue where Cap took on those evil communist college professors, or the way he dodged the whole Vietnam issue, or that emo period where he was all "Oh, I'm such an anachronism, wah, wah!").

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:ok? by mypalmike · · Score: 1

      but it's still just a comic

      Dude, it's Captain America! Captain America's dead, dude!

      Yeah, I don't get it either.

      --
      There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
    6. Re:ok? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      News for NERDS! I think this fits the bill rather well, considering he is one of the oldest comic characters I can think of.

      When I was a kid I remember seeing a comic book featuring Methuselah...

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    7. Re:ok? by PFI_Optix · · Score: 1

      Comic books should be taken as serious a form of art expression as any book, painting or sculpture

      You mean like a romance novel or a painting of a Campbell's Soup can or a urinal on a pedestal?

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    8. Re:ok? by sohare · · Score: 1

      Even the most fantastical of the comic books contains truths of human nature that we face every day.

      I'm certainly not going to disagree that comic books are valid expressions of art, but most art falls terribly short of portraying anything close to human nature. Art usually highly romanticizes rather mundane happenings, pushes the manic-depressive as normal, and more or less manufactures and self-perpetuates nearly every single malady it purports to reveal.

      Ever wonder why so many people feel like losers with a life that just isn't going anywhere despite their material success? Could it have anything to do with the fact that virtually all media (art, i.e., novels, television, film, etc.) portrays people living these fascinatingly desperate or fantastic lives, full of adventure, intrigue, love, etc? Then you get a film about some douchebag getting depressed and doing nothing with his life, and so the guy doing nothing with his life assumes he has to be depressed. Then you get a car commercial (especially in America) that shows how free and awesome life will be if you just get this high-powered sport utility vehicle. When you get it though, you're still the same loser as before. Let's not forget those commercials that show how wonderfully joyous it is to just washing the damn dishes. And you wonder why the stay-at-home mother is a pill popper. Let's not even get started on how art shoves the idea of a one and true soul-mate down our collective throats. I could go on for hours.

      Never, ever, discount the power of art and media to influence the population's emotion. Do you want to know what human nature is? Read a biology text. Take a shit, go eat some food. That's about the extent of human nature. Everything else is a human construction. Why did art originate? Probably because we got bored. We have that wonderful mix of a shitload of freetime (even the hard-worker) combined with a very active mind that gets inculcated with near Byronic tendencies from early age. That is what art portrays: itself.

      It doesn't take too much to be content in life. Of course, if you bought the whole salvation thing you probably don't give a damn about living a fulfilled life as it is, but if you're pretty sure this is the only chance you have, it's best to figure out how to live it well. You just need to come to terms with the fact that life is really about the little things. It's about going for a walk in the park and observing what's around you, fixing a bicycle, supporting your friends and family. If you change your basic attitude, then doing the mundane suddenly becomes quite fulfilling, and you stop searching for that thing that will grant you salvation, joy, success, whatever.

    9. Re:ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The death of Captain America is just fanboy churning, like the "death" of Superman or breaking Batman's back, or multiple collectible covers or any other sensationalist crap designed to extract pennies from pockets of the gullible. And I have the feeling one of these days someone will pop up noting 'oh - it was only an alternate reality bad dream, now back to our regularly scheduled universe.' Well, I have a life. And it doesn't have time for this crap anymore. I have more important things in life to worry about, like paying $80 to fill my gas tank.

    10. Re:ok? by STrinity · · Score: 1

      Comic books should be taken as serious a form of art expression as any book, painting or sculpture.
      Let me think about that for a moment ... mmm, no.
      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    11. Re:ok? by GrayCalx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I have a life. And it doesn't have time for this crap anymore.

      Thats too bad. Everyone should make some time for some sort of hobby. Be it reading, or painting, or coding, or playing video games, everyone needs some kind of outlet. Try to take some time in the evening and talk with your family, or if you have young children, you could read to them. I mean if you're not reading books or enjoying a past time because you're thinking about the price of gas... you're thinking about the price of gas entirely too much.

      And $80 a tank?!? Christ, first off maybe you should sell that SUV/Truck that you drive in the city. If its not that then its hard to complain about the cost of high-octane gasoline when you bought that imported sports car. The cost to fill it should've been obvious when you bought it.

      But really, park the car in the garage and read a book or watch a movie some night. No money on gas to worry about, and you get a nice break and some time to yourself.

    12. Re:ok? by Ngarrang · · Score: 1

      I love comics too, that doesn't mean I need a pointless article about them on my "news" site. News for Nerds. Isn't that the motto of Slashdot? Oh, it is, right up there at the top of the page. Comic books are considered pretty nerdy by some.
      --
      Bearded Dragon
    13. Re:ok? by GrayCalx · · Score: 1

      News for Nerds? Really? How come I didn't realize that? I must have gotten confused by all the Linux, Anti-Microsoft, anti-establishment, generally hating and whining posts. I'll adjust my expectations in the future. Well now that I know that this is a nerd-news site, and have read the latest on the all-important question "Where will Captain America be buried?" I can't wait to find out what Spiderman has for breakfast tomorrow!!! Or what kind of sheets The Hulk uses. Low thread-count is my guess...

  6. What do you expect? by AltGrendel · · Score: 1, Insightful
    With the story line so relevant to present-day politics, and the timing of the latest issue so precise, it's hard not to think the whole thing is one big slam on the government.

    With an administration that is turning out to be as bad as the Nixon and Harding administrations combined, I wouldn't be at all surprised. Marvel will tell you that it's just coincidence, and it may very well be, but that doesn't mean it's not timely.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:What do you expect? by AxemRed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At least Harding knew that his cronies were doing wrong and had a problem with it. From Wikipedia:

      "My God, this is a hell of a job!" Harding said. "I have no trouble with my enemies, but my damn friends, my God-damned friends... they're the ones that keep me walking the floor nights!"

      Bush just gives them a pat on the back...

    2. Re:What do you expect? by Faw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, he gives them medals...

    3. Re:What do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nixon is still remembered as a great statesman. Certainly he overstepped and deserved to be impeached, but the American people benifitted greatly from his tenure. His final book, written after the Wall came down, predicted what would happen if the US ignored the World. Slick Billy did and everything came true.

      Bush, the worst President? Are you old enough to remember Carter?

    4. Re:What do you expect? by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With an administration that is turning out to be as bad as the Nixon and Harding administrations combined, I wouldn't be at all surprised. Marvel will tell you that it's just coincidence, and it may very well be, but that doesn't mean it's not timely.

      You forgot to add "Clinton" to that list. You do realize Bill Clinton pardoned 16 members of the FALN, a Puerto Rican terrorist group responsible for more than 120 bombings and at least six deaths? And don't forget the cocaine trafficker, the bank fraudsters, the perjurers, the billionaire tax evasion fugitive, the Whitewater contempt-of-court inmate, several Congressional Democrat felons, and his own drug-convicted brother. All of these done on the very last day of his presidency, of course. Not that such actions were in any way designed to pay back political favors while escaping any sort of press scrutiny or political fallout.

      Lots of presidents have used the power of the pardon and clemency unwisely, but if you're going to go back as far as Harding to find an example to go with Nixon, I think you overlooked a rather sterling example of this kind of abuse. I fixed that for you.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    5. Re:What do you expect? by dancin_mitch · · Score: 1

      Yeah the best bit is that most the other countries have ditched there leaders over this iraq thing. (or they get bad press at least)

      America re elects him...

    6. Re:What do you expect? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Slick Billy did and everything came true.

      You mean like trying to negotiate a solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Or ending the genocide in the former Yugoslavia? Or fighting Al Queda? Of course, every time he tried to attack them, you had the Republicans in Congress accusing him of "wagging the dog".

      Bush, the worst President? Are you old enough to remember Carter?

      Are you dumb enough to think he wanted OPEC to cause an energy crisis or was as fault for the CIA overthrowing Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953?

  7. "cemetary"? by timster · · Score: 5, Funny

    So tell me, where did they bury Captain Spelling? The libary?

    --
    I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    1. Re:"cemetary"? by sinator · · Score: 1

      Yes, and in the Cemetary, Grave Robers tried to pilfer his grave, only to be attacked by Skleltons and Zmobies and Lihces. Then the Bonerdagon attacked them all!

      --
      Three Step Plan:
      1. Take over the world.
      2. Get a lot of cookies.
      3. Eat the cookies.
    2. Re:"cemetary"? by the+phantom · · Score: 1

      If you go "Eeeee!" all through the cemetery, you should be fine.

    3. Re:"cemetary"? by Speare · · Score: 1

      In Stephen King's Pet Sematary, of course!

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
  8. Slam on government? by hal2814 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the Red Skull assassinating Captain America is a slam on government? The arrest and surrounding Civil War hullabaloo is most likely a slam on government but Captain America's death is nothing more than a cash grab. They're just exchanging one live character with poor monthly sales and the occasional strong moment in ensemble titles for a martyr who can help bolster sales across the board. He'll be like Hal Jordan: more popular dead than he ever was alive. If this were really a slam on government, then the government would have a lot more to do with his actual death instead of it being a Red Skull masterminded event.

    1. Re:Slam on government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree with the parent...

      Sincerely,
      George Bush

    2. Re:Slam on government? by CryogenicKeen · · Score: 1

      I agree that Captain America being dead does make him more popular in the present then "alive". But I also think that if they made the government the main one responsible for his death then it would just be like oh Marvel is being TOO anti-patriotic I will not buy this issue because it may conflict with my prior belief... I think that you are onto something it is both. If you add the Red Skull as the one responsible you get people like us debating, "oh is it really about the government!" "No its just the Red Skull!".. Either way if its a cash grab its a good one in the sense that if you like it or hate it, its bound to have people talking about it and comparing it to real life as well as someone perhaps ever buying the issue to see what all the hub-bub is about...

      --
      I looked through a lot of quotes about life and they are all bullocks.
    3. Re:Slam on government? by techpawn · · Score: 1

      Sort of like the "death" of Superman? How many people bought that issue just to have his ass come back from the death three issues later in 5 different forms. It would not suprise me if what made Cap somehow is able to bring him back from the dead when a new president is elected and this current phobia of meta-humans is over in the Marvel universe

      --
      Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    4. Re:Slam on government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red Skull?

      The commies killed him!

    5. Re:Slam on government? by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      Exactly. And in addition to that, the government didn't beat Cap. He didn't care what the government thought (and is already known for fighting them several times throughout his career). What beat him was when he realized he was fighting the people. He gave up.

      I want Tony Stark to die by being slowly mashed into paste by a Hulk-Thor tagteam, but to be honest he's probably right. Vigilantes, no matter how much we love the underdog, are generally a bad thing. Civil War wasn't any more of an indictment of the government than it was of vigilantes working outside of the law.

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    6. Re:Slam on government? by gilroy · · Score: 1
      Blockquoth the poster:

      I will not buy this issue because it may conflict with my prior belief...


      And there it is, ladies and gentlemen -- the root cause of the decline of Western civilization and the fall of the American republic...
    7. Re:Slam on government? by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Sort of like the "death" of Superman?

      Okay, but Marvel used to be known for keeping the dead, dead. I say Captain America isn't coming back. Someone else might step up to the name, though.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    8. Re:Slam on government? by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      In other news, Marvel decides to make plot lines that sell comic books.

      How dare they kill off a character because it garners interest by fans!

      Red Skull has robbed George Bush of his glory!

      I think for even more, wallowing in the muck of increased sales, they should send Red Skull to GitMo, so that we can finally feel some pity for the character.... until of course, he starts working as a Prison Guard in Abu Ghraib.

      Ah, see... they are just toying with you. If you keep with it, you will get a great payoff with powerful political commentary for people who are reading comic books instead of hanging out at Camp Casey. Yes, then the Bush administration will tremble!

      [sorry, I couldn't help myself]

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    9. Re:Slam on government? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Sure there will be a new hipper more modern Captin American Perhaps a mutent hybrid betweed a human and a Dog, With a surf board and sun glasses.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:Slam on government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like Jean Grey.

    11. Re:Slam on government? by PinkPanther · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a mutent hybrid betweed a human and a Dog, With a surf board and sun glasses.

      You mean a super hero like this? (!!!)

      ;-)

      --
      It's a simple matter of complex programming.
    12. Re:Slam on government? by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      They're up to 2 so far. Punisher, and Bucky(a.k.a Winter Soldier, ex-capt. America sidekick, later a russian covert assasin). Punisher took the mantle. Bucky's trying to take the shield. Perhaps more will pop up, then Capt. America comes back to settle everything and show them what naughty fake Capt. Americas they've been.

    13. Re:Slam on government? by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      Civil War wasn't any more of an indictment of the government than it was of vigilantes working outside of the law.
      Are you sure it isn't an indictment of a government that works outside the law?
      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    14. Re:Slam on government? by Culture20 · · Score: 0

      Try increasing his coolness factor:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itchy_%26_Scratchy#Po ochie

    15. Re:Slam on government? by chromatic · · Score: 1

      You're faulting fans of superhero comics for not rethinking their deeply held and well-thought political beliefs?

      I mean, I know Civil War isn't Vineland, but....

    16. Re:Slam on government? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Vigilantes, no matter how much we love the underdog, are generally a bad thing.

      Not in Marvel they aren't. With exceptions for Wolverine and the Punisher, the heroes in Marvel never pronounce sentence on the bad guys, they turn them over to law enforcement.

    17. Re:Slam on government? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Okay, but Marvel used to be known for keeping the dead, dead. I say Captain America isn't coming back. Someone else might step up to the name, though.

      Yes, they "used to be". Then they served up a shit salad with the return of Norman Osbourne, the one main bad guy to have the decency to stay dead.

    18. Re:Slam on government? by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      Are you sure it isn't an indictment of a government that works outside the law?


      I know people like to say that this government does that, and I don't doubt there are isolated cases of it. But with things like Waco/Ruby Ridge, how the FBI under Kennedy treated Civil Rights leaders, etc. I don't see how this is a new thing.
      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    19. Re:Slam on government? by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      1) Obviously you didn't read Civil War, as the whole point there was that innocent people often get hurt in the process of vigilantism but since they wear a mask, no one can be held to account. Fuck the bad guys, thinkofthechildren!
      2) Obviously you haven't read Spider Man lately, either. Or New Avengers... Or Captain America, etc., etc., etc. Quite a lot of people lately have been very happy to dish out punishment outside of the legal system.

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    20. Re:Slam on government? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Obviously you didn't read Civil War, as the whole point there was that innocent people often get hurt in the process of vigilantism but since they wear a mask, no one can be held to account. Fuck the bad guys, thinkofthechildren!

      Yawn. So what's worse: Spidey having a destructive fight with Carnage in Manhattan that leaves a few people wounded, or just let Carnage roam around offing dozens of people at will? Hmmm.

      Obviously you haven't read Spider Man lately, either. Or New Avengers... Or Captain America, etc., etc., etc. Quite a lot of people lately have been very happy to dish out punishment outside of the legal system.

      I'll take 50+ years of history over one crappy storyline, thank you.

    21. Re:Slam on government? by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      Yawn. So what's worse: Spidey having a destructive fight with Carnage in Manhattan that leaves a few people wounded, or just let Carnage roam around offing dozens of people at will? Hmmm.
      False dilemma. There's a third option: An individual who can be held accountable for his actions (preferably affiliated with law enforcement of some kind) takes down Carnage. I'm more of a fan of the first option in my comics, but it's not usually a workable option in reality.

      I'll take 50+ years of history over one crappy storyline, thank you.
      Emphasis mine
      So you didn't just not read Civil War, but you're not reading anything Marvel's putting out right now. Teh awesome. And even Spider Man didn't bring the Green Goblin to justice. He didn't kill him directly, but he didn't do much to not kill him... Then again, he apparently didn't die anyway. Supervillain respawning in 5...
      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    22. Re:Slam on government? by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      False dilemma

      No, it's the exact dilemma you are going to have. Registering and working with law enforcement reveals your identity. Revealing your identity opens up your friends and family to attack. Which means guys like Spidey are more likely to stay home and mind their own business. With means Carnage is going to merrily slaughter his way through your civilians and law enforcement until SHIELD shows up with sonic weapons and flame throwers.

      So you didn't just not read Civil War, but you're not reading anything Marvel's putting out right now. Teh awesome. And even Spider Man didn't bring the Green Goblin to justice. He didn't kill him directly, but he didn't do much to not kill him... Then again, he apparently didn't die anyway. Supervillain respawning in 5...

      Bigger yawn. Mentioning Gobby doesn't exactly help your case, since Spidey had already decided not to kill him, when Norman impaled himself with his own glider.

  9. mwoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The captian always goes down with his ship

  10. And in the next issue... by kgp_crap · · Score: 5, Funny

    It is later revealed that the plan was orchestrated by the Red Skull;

    This just in from Marvel..In the next issue..Red Skull gets a Presidential pardon.

    1. Re:And in the next issue... by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

      That doesn't happen till after the elections buddy.

      --
      You mad
    2. Re:And in the next issue... by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      And then goes to Paris!

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    3. Re:And in the next issue... by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      It is very appropriate that he did... things standing as they are these days.

      To continue the metaphor, I think his coffin should be draped with the Constitution, rather than the flag. So that they can both rest in peace with the respect they deserve.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    4. Re:And in the next issue... by naoursla · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should read today's news again.

    5. Re:And in the next issue... by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should read the news again. His sentence was COMMUTED. He still has the conviction his record. So he is rather unemployable right now. Not that its going to bother him one bit.

      Don't worry though, he will get his PARDON when everyone else gets theirs.

      --
      You mad
    6. Re:And in the next issue... by Xtravar · · Score: 1

      No... he gets his sentence commuted to a year of community service and probation.

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    7. Re:And in the next issue... by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

      He still has the conviction his record. So he is rather unemployable right now. Not that its going to bother him one bit.


      I suspect an upstanding corporation like Halliburton would give a nice ex-con a chance to pull himself up.
      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
  11. I'd be more upset... by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

    ...but my Real American Hero is actually Mr. Giant Foam Finger Maker.

  12. Marvel killing off all heroes by Himring · · Score: 1

    Why is Marvel killing-off all of their heroes? Is it to make room for new comics, pursue movie-making using all the old material, what? I think continuing the comic stories is a loss for them. Comic sales, I've heard, have been steadily declining for years.

    I will say this though, "The Hulk: The End," was by far one of the best comics I've ever read. Him being the very last hero -- even human -- alive is very fitting in the Marvel universe....

    --
    "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    1. Re:Marvel killing off all heroes by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      Comic sales, I've heard, have been steadily declining for years.
      To take a tip from our RIAA overlords, we can assume that this is in some way related to file sharing and peer to peer in general.

      It's time we start selling comic books with a biometric lock which can only be read by one person, up to a maximum of 4 different fingers. The only explanation for these declining sales is clearly no fault of the industry.
    2. Re:Marvel killing off all heroes by hal2814 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hero deaths in futures that aren't part of the standard Marvel universe are very common. "Days of Future Past", "The Last Avengers Story"*, "Death's Head II Miniseries", "Earth X" etc are all books that show the death of a character or set of characters in a way that does not affect the continuity of the Marvel Comics universe. "Hulk: The End" fits into that category. Hulk dies but it's a story set in a future that likely will never happen in any of Marvel's other monthly titles (or even in the Incredible Hulk monthly titles). Captain America's death is part of the mainstream continuity and all characters and titles must deal with it. Captain America can't guest star in Iron Man anymore. He can't be in any non-flashback Avengers stories. He's dead to the Marvel Universe. That's a lot more significant a change than the Hulk's death in a possible future timeline.

      * This is quite possibly the best alternate future title I've even read just because of blind Hawkeye.

    3. Re:Marvel killing off all heroes by (A)*(B)!0_- · · Score: 1
      The death of the hero is a theme that has been explored and re-explored again and again in both the Marvel and DC universes. Captain America is just the latest in a list of superheroes that have been killed off at one time or another.

      As far as sales go, these statistics don't show a decline but a modest growth. Based on the general state of the industry, I'd also say that the growth is much more healthy than what went on in the 90s when speculators drove the market to huge heights (but then abandoned it shortly thereafter). So, no - the comic book industry is not in decline.

    4. Re:Marvel killing off all heroes by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      The Comic Book Guy is wearing his too-small Captain America t-shirt in mourning. He is also marking up the price on all of his Captain America stock.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    5. Re:Marvel killing off all heroes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do it TO SELL COMICS

      If i recall, during the 3 or 4 years i was a comic book reader, i saw the demise of spider man, super man, thor, the hulk, and iron man.

      Dont worry, he'll be back with a new series next week.

  13. Death isn't the handicap it used to be... by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm amused by how the mainstream media has fallen for this marketting hype. We're geekier than that though. Death is one of the least permanent states for a comic character. Superman died in the 1990's. He seemed to get better and he wasn't the first. I very much doubt Jean Grey was either. Even Uncle Ben has been ressurected briefly via an alternative timeline.

    1. Re:Death isn't the handicap it used to be... by solevita · · Score: 1

      >Even Uncle Ben has been ressurected briefly via an alternative timeline.

      The rice seller character was an eternal money spinner.

    2. Re:Death isn't the handicap it used to be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Captain America: The Chosen #1 - in stores September 5th 2007 - Cap is back in some form... (from Marvel.com)

    3. Re:Death isn't the handicap it used to be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having a new person take the name of an old super hero is a common theme in comics as well. DC seems to do it more than Marvel (Green Lantern, Flash, etc), but we could easily see someone new take the name Captain America and carry a big shield.

    4. Re:Death isn't the handicap it used to be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having a new person take the name of an old super hero is a common theme in comics as well. DC seems to do it more than Marvel (Green Lantern, Flash, etc), but we could easily see someone new take the name Captain America and carry a big shield. Already been done. There were two other Captain Americas before they brought the original 1940's Cap back. (He was frozen in the Arctic, but his super-soldier metabolism allowed him to survive thawing.) There'll be other Caps, certainly, but only one ever fought Hitler, and he's dead. Marvel is pretty big on keeping characters dead, with a few exceptions.. (Jean Grey being the biggest.) This usually lets them either clear out unpopular side-characters or start a new arc with a different person in the suit.

        Over DC way, Flash has likewise had only ~3 incarnations since the 1940s, as I recall. Green Lantern, OTOH, is an office, so it's natural that it changes hands frequently. In fact there were 3,600 Green Lanterns across the galaxy, each covering a sector of space. In the latest run, the Guardians have doubled them up, opting for a buddy system so there are now 7200 GLs.. Incidentally, the past couple years' Green Lantern/Green Lantern Corps arc has been excellent. Time was in the 80's I wouldn't give DC the time of day, but they've learned a lot of lessons since then, and their characters are much more varied and fascinating. Plus, when they killed Hal Jordan, they kept his ass dead for years, only bringing him back in 2004 to start this new GL arc.
    5. Re:Death isn't the handicap it used to be... by OfficeSubmarine · · Score: 1

      The entertainment sections of the media are just as much a part of the game as the subjects being covered. They don't like to bite the hand that feeds them.

    6. Re:Death isn't the handicap it used to be... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Marvel is pretty big on keeping characters dead, with a few exceptions..

      Yeah, excepting just about everybody now. Norman Osbourne was the *one* major bad guy to actually stay dead for decades, until John Bryne brought him back in a fantastically shitty story line.

  14. Who slain him? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Please, tell me it was some agents from the CIA, and by presidential orders!! It would fit this government PERFECTLY.

  15. Iraq by 8tim8 · · Score: 1

    >it's hard not to think the whole thing is one big slam on the government.

    It's been quite a while since I've read comics, but do comics today even mention Iraq? And what exactly is a "big slam on the government"? A vague commentary on the fact that (gasp!) people sometimes die, and the gov't should do something about it? Or is the death of Captain America a specific critique of Bush's policies in Iraq? Could someone who's followed the storyline enlighten me? Thanks.

    1. Re:Iraq by dharbee · · Score: 1

      The writers don't really mention Iraq, instead they've been using a stand in. The recent Civil War was an event based around the idea that people need to sacrifice security for safety. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

      Specifically, a group of heroes was involved in a serious incident in which a school full of children was destroyed. After this, a registration initiative was undertaken to prevent such a thing for reoccurring. Anyone with powers had to register, or retire and never use their powers again.

      There are clear parallels to many real life situations throughout the storyline.

    2. Re:Iraq by Canthros · · Score: 1

      Civil War was a hamhanded attempt at political commentary in which a handful of powerful individuals decided to force a situation that would require infringing on the "rights" of many super-powered vigilantes. As the storyline wore on, we had Captain America on the side of those who wanted to preserve their right to dress up in funny pajamas and fight other people in funny pajamas anonymously, and Iron Man manufacturing a growing crisis on the other side of the argument in order to get his registration act through and wind up head of SHIELD. To make it go down easier, an equivalence was drawn to both sides to show that, hey, we're just as bad as them. Oh, and we got some of the goddamned stupidest commentary ever about Captain America being out of touch with the people because he didn't keep track of NASCAR.

      It was stupid, and the allegory was clumsy and juvenile. Granted, comics, and superhero comics especially, are a medium aimed at a juvenile audience. Writing for an audience of juveniles doesn't have to be, though.

      What makes the death of Captain America even dumber is that it's probably all going to be undone before the movie they're working on comes out in 2009, or whenever Jeph Loeb is done with the book, whichever comes first.

      --
      Canthros
    3. Re:Iraq by nearlygod · · Score: 1

      Yes it does sound familiar. It sounds like Watchmen.

      nearlygod

      --
      The Tools Of Ignorance wanna be a tool?
    4. Re:Iraq by Jack+Sombra · · Score: 2, Informative

      "It's been quite a while since I've read comics, but do comics today even mention Iraq? And what exactly is a "big slam on the government"? A vague commentary on the fact that (gasp!) people sometimes die, and the gov't should do something about it? Or is the death of Captain America a specific critique of Bush's policies in Iraq? Could someone who's followed the storyline enlighten me? Thanks"

      Do comic's mention Iraq? yes regularly but always as a side note because if they bring it to much to the fore it would lead to the obvious question of "Why does Massively overpowered superhero X not just go over there and sort it all out?"

      And it was not so much the death of CA that was the slam on the government and events over the last few years but rather more the events that led up it

      School worth of children die, public outrage, press feeding frenzy, overreaction, hints of government/Big Corp involvement = 9/11

      Using the previous event as a springboard, new laws rapidly passed with little thought or review that seriously affect individuals liberties (aka if you have powers you are automatically classified as criminal unless you register with the government all your details) while giving huge powers to the government and riches to those in the shadows behind the government= Whole patriot act

      Hulk getting dumped into a rocket and sent on a one way trip to space by "his friends" (which is now going to have serious repercussions with World War: Hulk coming) = CIA "renditions"

      People (with powers) getting locked up in a negative zone prison with no access to the legal system or trial = Guantanamo bay

      The death of CA is more or less a comment saying with all the above "America, land of the free" has been killed

    5. Re:Iraq by Culture20 · · Score: 0

      So was Captain America fighting for the Right to Bear (Super Soldier/Gamma-powered/Radioactive-Spider/Cosmic Ray Induced/X-Factor) Arms, and Richards & Stark are the eeeeevil political-party-X taking away that right? Weren't they just Thinking of the Children? Wouldn't Earth be better without vigilante superheros running around?

      I'm reminded of a mindless X-men comic (one where they're still hiding out in Australia), and some aliens are about to attack. Most violent, conquering aliens steer clear of Marvel Earth for a couple reasons, which one young alien found out too late: This planet successfully repelled two attacks by Galactus, the World Eater, and is thought to be the birth place of the Dark Phoenix, the Star Killer. It's not a good idea to attack the planet.
      I'm also reminded of the Halloween episode of the Simpsons with the Monkey Paw. Lisa wishes for world peace, everyone destroys their guns, and Kang and Kodos begin to take over.

      This whole Civil War sounds contrived, and contrived badly. Richards wouldn't react in the extreme like this; Stark might, but he'd sober up the next day and get right back on the wagon. It sounds like an X-men author decided to have the "Sentinels Future" come to life in the continuity, and used whatever he could to make it happen.

  16. Oh, that's fair! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    Captain Marvel is dumped into some pauper's grave in Sioux Falls and this commie-bashing traitorous prick gets a spot in Arlington Cemetery?!?!?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  17. And? by jayhawk88 · · Score: 1

    With the story line so relevant to present-day politics, and the timing of the latest issue so precise, it's hard not to think the whole thing is one big slam on the government.

    Isn't this one of the responsibilities artists have to the society that supports them?

    1. Re:And? by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

      Isn't this one of the responsibilities artists have to the society that supports them? The only "responsibility" that enters into it is the responsibility of these particular artists to make something that sells books for the company they work for.

      In general though, as an artist I can tell you with extreme confidence that I'm not responsible for a damn thing apart from getting whatever's in my head out onto the paper/disc/website/sculpture/performance/whatever. There is no set of artist rules that demand my work be socially responsible. I can do that if I wish, but I can just as easily sculpt a cute baby kitten with adorable kitten eyes, do a standup act about airline food and breaking up with my girlfriend, or build the ultimate ASCII-art version of Goatse.
  18. Do we care? by Burb · · Score: 1

    Probably not. The Doctor's next companion is to be Kylie Minogue. Who needs Captain America?

    --

  19. Course, there's comic book heros by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Or the opportunity to buy a pint for someone who actually did something heroic.

    http://johnsmeaton.com/

    Yes, beer really does cost £3($6) a pint here, and no I have no idea who's running the site.

    --
    Deleted
  20. She is not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She's in the Christmas special, not the next season/series. I wish they'd bring back Sally Sparrow, and maybe her boyfriend, as the next companion(s), but I'm afraid that won't happen.

    1. Re:She is not by Burb · · Score: 1

      Good suggestion. Against all expectations, "Blink" was pretty good.

      --

    2. Re:She is not by EveLibertine · · Score: 1

      You expected it to be bad? I thought it was going to be great, and I wasn't disappointed. But then again I thought that the ELO episode of the previous season, Love and Monsters, was the best one... so what do I know? They're similar episodes in the respect that they take the focus almost completely off of what the Doctor and friends are doing, and focus on someone else. I hope Davies does one more like it in next year's season.

    3. Re:She is not by denebeim · · Score: 1

      I don't know. I think it would be really cheesy to have yet another one episode companion. Especially since they were calling the last one *The* Christmas Companion. However you're horribly spoiling the show for us yanks who have just seen series 2. I also don't believe they've even shown the christmas specials here in the states, so we don't even know they exist never mind that they're important to the story line.

      So, since we're a year behind here nobody in the united states have seen any of the third series. We don't know that the whole thing was top notch from the beginning to the end. And even if it was shown none of us has seen Torchwood either, so even if we do eventually see the third series will be totally confused by the mysterious jar that kept being shown all through Torchwood, but who's payoff was in Dr. Who. (Russel Davis (sp?) was a real bastard doing that IMO)

      Oh, and one thing, speaking of 'Blink', ALL my favorite Dr. Who episodes were written by Stephen 'Coupling' Moffat, so can he run Who when Davis leaves after the next series please please please.

    4. Re:She is not by mink · · Score: 1

      "So, since we're a year behind here nobody in the united states have seen any of the third series."

      I have.

      The Dominators kill Davros.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    5. Re:She is not by denebeim · · Score: 1

      Um, yes. That was intended as a bit of irony. I guess it was a bit obtuse for the 'reply to ancient posts with inane one liners' set. I shall endeavor to keep your class of posters in mind henceforth.

    6. Re:She is not by mink · · Score: 1

      My fault for getting a bit behind on /.
      At least I'm up to the 6th now.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  21. Re:To the author... [SPOILERS] by bri2000 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I think that's the point. I don't read comics anything like as much as I used to, and hadn't read any "classic" universe Marvel for a few years, when I picked up the trade paperback of Civil War a couple of months ago. The whole thing seemed to be an allegory for current US politics with Captain America representing the liberal "we must not let the terrorists win by abrogating our freedoms" wing and with the killer android and concentration camp designing Reed Richards and Tony Stark representing the neocon "things have changed and the world is too dangerous for our old freedoms" wing. The point is the neocons do win. Captain America is shown to be out of touch and unrepresentative of (and in the final issue he is attacked by) the ordinary Americans he purports to represent, whereas Richards and Stark are hailed as true heroes. Sure, Sue gets a bit miffed with Reed about the whole killer android version of Thor thing, running off to join Caps rebels but she soons gets over her feminine mood swing and comes back - in an interesting parallel to recent Scooter Libby developments, Reed demands, and gets, a full pardon for Sue while his concentration camp is slowly filled with all the other post humans who refuse to co-operate with Reed and Stark.

    And that's it. Reed and Stark turn into Henry Bendix types who kill and imprison people to help bring about their conception of a finer world with no comebacks (unless, as I fervently hope, at some point during World War Hulk, the Hulk removes Stark from his armour via the neck and then uses the emtpy shell as a latrine). The whole book seemed to be an endorsement of the idea of the competent, benign (unless you disagree with him - in which case its Prison 42 for you) dictator and, for me at least, left a bad taste. A shame as I've really liked Millar's work on The Ultimates.

  22. Get Over Yourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was a fucking storyline to sell comic books and generate publicity with apparently great success. They reeled in suckers like you, who will use this opportunity to project your own political views on a fucking comic book. What will you say when they revive him in a few years when Bush is gone?

    I would like to hear how Superman was also an indication of the eroding rights of the people or how Jason Todd was an indication of the downfall of innocence.

    The fact that this was posted to slashdot "politics" shows how far this site has fallen.

  23. Stephen King involved? by mach1980 · · Score: 1

    His epitaph at the local cemetery says it all: NOT A VERY NICE GUY

    *ducks*

    --
    Break the sound barrier - bring the noise.
  24. government is not America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Flag and America is nothing to do with government. Our government COULD be erased with a shrug of the peoples' shoulder or a flick of their wrist yet the flag and the meaning of America would still be the same. Those freaks in Washington are only considered America because WE allow it, period. Capatain America, instead of dying (?) needs to fly into the Capitol and start smackin some heads. Then he would need to fly around the world apologizing to the people we have destroyed along with helping people in Darfur and other phsycotic hell hole African countries. Captain America dying? That is just propaganda to ease American's into accepting failure and the ultimate despair or tyranny that follows. I'm no Marvel fan but posing somthing named America and having it die is outright crap and I do not find it funny. Again, America is not our filthy government, get it right! Hardly anyone realizes the amount of crime and drugs and prostitues/slaves comsumed by our so called government goons in these global trades; but slowly they are finding out one by one.

  25. It's a multiverse....Marvel killing off all heroes by WillAdams · · Score: 1

    Remember, Marvel has _three_ separate story lines going these days:

      - Mainstream Marvel universe (Earth-616) (the old titles, w/ issue numbers ranging well past the hundreds
      - ``Ultimates'' (Earth-1610) which has only just started to reach past 100 w/ Spiderman
      - Marvel Adventures (Earth-20051) which is their line of stories suited for younger readers

    Captain America is alive and well in the latter two, and as the numbers indicate they've got lots more, which get written about on a semi-regular basis

    William
    (who quit reading comics when _X-Factor_ #1 came out and they declared that Phoenix wasn't really Jean Grey --- it's really bad when a one-off cross-over book (The X-Men Teen Titans one) has a better handle on characterization than the mainstream one.)

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  26. Sorry, should read "privacy for safety" by dharbee · · Score: 1

    See subject.

  27. "Death" in comics by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    Dying in a comic is like dying on a soap opera. You're only truly "dead" if the audience doesn't want you back.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  28. Re:To the author... [SPOILERS] by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

    The way you describe it, I wouldn't think of it as an endorsement at all. More like dark humor.

    Just because someone wins doesn't mean the author endorses them. Often, such cases are supposed to be warnings.

  29. Where's Thor When You Need Him? by morari · · Score: 1

    He's the only Avenger that could clean up this mess. Pagan Gods, if you can hear me, please help! I don't really care what pantheon you're from at this point, just so long as you don't let Wiccans run around ruining your good name.

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
  30. Probably a skrull. by Picass0 · · Score: 1

    Like Electra. Once Hulk is done racking up a scorecard, I'me sure we will find out mst of the people who acted so out of character in Civil War were Skrull.

    Anybody who thinks Steve Rodgers isn't going to return withing 14 months doesn't know comics.

    1. Re:Probably a skrull. by brouski · · Score: 1

      I think the Skrull infiltration is likely Tony's "out". We'll find out that he knew about (or suspected) the Skrull's presence on Earth, and Registration was his roundabout way of keeping tabs on the superheros, to try and determine who was who.

      --
      Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
  31. Captain America: The Chosen #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - in stores September 5th 2007 - didn't take them long to bring Cap back (in some form)

    now everybody step back and say "it is only a comic book"

  32. How do you figure this is a slam on the government by Steeltalon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Captain America gave up. Iron-Man, Reed Richards, and their goons were clearly in the wrong and Captain America gave up. Iron-Man and Reed are the ones who were committing (at best) "morally gray" acts. Iron-Man and Reed are the ones who cloned Thor, resulting in Goliath's death. Iron-Man and Reed are the ones who were supporting, guess what? The government. Captain America gave up the fight against the forces of oppression in a nod to the government. His death is, if anything, a sign that his breed of super-hero has no place in the Fox news world that Marvel seems to favor now. This is a slam against us. Certainly not to the government or to Iron-Man.

    --
    Regards, Ian
  33. So what if it is? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    it's hard not to think the whole thing is one big slam on the government.

    Art and literature have always been used as commentary on all sorts of social issues. Why should comic books be exempt?

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  34. Generally, art and politics DON'T mix by tjstork · · Score: 0

    Generally speaking, art and politics don't mix, and, if it does, the result is usually propaganda. If, as some have posted, they had Wolverine ripping up Scooter Libby, that would really be propaganda. But unlike supposed "real" artists, Marvel seems to have struck a thought provoking balance.

    This Marvel work has many interpretations. It could be about the war on terror, but it could also be about gun control, with superheros as an allegorical reference to guns.. registration, ya know.

    Those of us who are already against all the Homeland Security crap and USA PATRIOT have something to root for, but also, those who are genuinely in favor have a format with which they can explore for themselves the consequences of what they believe in, and can, in their own minds, decide if they really do deserve liberty still, after trading it for security.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Generally, art and politics DON'T mix by Scrameustache · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Generally speaking, art and politics don't mix You know less than nothing about art.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  35. Commentary not really a great thing by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On one online comic forum I troll through, the majority of the readers are generally pissed off about Civil War. On the one hand, creating an effective pro-registration side meant essentially turning some superheroes evil. SHIELD shot first at Captain America - not for not wanting to register, but for not wanting to hunt down his old friends. And Iron Man lost all credibility he had in this encounter, including hiring former supervillians to start a false war with Atlantis, just to prove his point.

    Problem is, all of the "good guys" weren't much better. Rather than actually providing solid arguments as to what they were opposing the government for, most of the superheroes just ran around shouting how bad the government is and smoking weed and putting flowers in their hair. The few times that Captain America had a moment in front of a reporter to explain his case, he just listed a bunch of hippie talking points, rather than actually talking about how the law could hurt superheroes, or even mentioning that SHIELD shot at him first.

    Civil War could have been a chance to have some real commentary on modern issues, but it quickly devolved into just a chance for people to fight each other. There was no real discussion, no real logic, and Cap's sudden death just capped the whole thing off as being an attempt for controversy rather than any sort of political message.

    --
    Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
    1. Re:Commentary not really a great thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SHIELD shot first at Captain America.
      I wonder if in a few years, they'll CGI the part and make Captain America shoot first.
    2. Re:Commentary not really a great thing by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      ...could have been a chance to have some real commentary on modern issues, but it quickly devolved into just a chance for people to fight each other. There was no real discussion, no real logic...

      Kinda reminds me of how people REALLY act and react.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    3. Re:Commentary not really a great thing by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Civil War could have been a chance to have some real commentary on modern issues, but it quickly devolved into just a chance for people to fight each other. There was no real discussion, no real logic And I, for one, am shocked. SHOCKED that a comic book would devolve from it's original intent of rational discussion to a long fight scene.
      For shame! What has the world become, I ask. What indeed!
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:Commentary not really a great thing by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      he just listed a bunch of hippie talking points, rather than actually talking about how the law could hurt superheroes, or even mentioning that SHIELD shot at him first.


      Yeah, who cares about hippie shit like the Constitution and civil liberties when big issues like who shot first are available? Everyone remembers, of course, that Captain America fought Nazi Germany because they could have inconvenienced super-heroes, it had nothing to do with them threatening liberty and other hippie talking points like that.
      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    5. Re:Commentary not really a great thing by mroberts47 · · Score: 0

      Yeah, well keep in mind that back during WWII the Democrats were not namby pamby wusses who thought that guns were evil and "oh my gosh, we need to talk to the Nazis and have heart-to-heart to find out why they feel the way they do" no, it was pretty much (although yes, not everyone wanted to go to war against Germany) that everyone realized that Nazis were bad and something had to be done. It is a sad state of affairs that today the Democrats have no moral base and are all about feel good fuzzy politics where as the Republicans, while having a moral base, are so busy with making sure everyone likes them that they put the things like border security and beating the crap outa terrorists onto the sidelines. It just sucks all over.

      --
      "When you can't run anymore, you crawl... and when you can't do that, you find someone to carry you." - Malcolm Reynolds
    6. Re:Commentary not really a great thing by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      WTF does that have to do with anything?

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    7. Re:Commentary not really a great thing by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well keep in mind that back during WWII the Democrats were not namby pamby wusses who thought that guns were evil

      Which Democrats, exactly? Guiliani, Bloomberg, and George W. Bush?

      we need to talk to the Nazis and have heart-to-heart to find out why they feel the way they do

      Fine, don't talk to the Iranians. Just study history for two minutes and find out that we overthrew their peacefully elected, but *gasp* socialist government and installed a strongman to find out why they are pissed as us.

    8. Re:Commentary not really a great thing by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 1

      I sympathize with that response, but on the other hand, these aren't real people. You'd think the embodiment of American ideals and values would be able to coherently define those ideals and values, y'know?

      --
      Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
    9. Re:Commentary not really a great thing by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 1

      I'll tell you what it's become - it's become a world where values-free comics like Nextwave, Deadpool, and the Irredeemable Ant-Man are totally awesome. :D

      --
      Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
  36. Sad but pertinent by grapeape · · Score: 1

    Captain America's been torn apart
    Now he's a court jester with a broken heart
    He said Turn me around and take me back to the start
    I must be losing my mind "are you blind?"
    I've seen it all a million times

  37. That's just because you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not really. But you and your "everything old is better, there's nothing new under the sun" crowd are too crotchety to ever admit how stupid you are.

    And Watchmen was rubbish.

  38. but but superman by genner · · Score: 1

    We've been down this road with Superman already.
    How long before they reserect the Cap?

  39. Re:How do you figure this is a slam on the governm by sesshomaru · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
  40. Re:To the author... [SPOILERS] by bri2000 · · Score: 1

    I take the point. The problem is the tone of the book (especially the ending) makes that interpretation very difficult to sustain. Still it did its job, I guess, as, sucker that I am, I'm now buying World War Hulk to see if Richards and Stark finally get the kicking they so richly deserve.

  41. Author not just political. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    If you read about the whole death of Captain America you will find that the story line is related directly to the death of the author's son. This story has evolved along with the grief of the author, and the eulogy expresses some of his thoughts and feelings of his own son's eulogy.

  42. Re:Now.. by genner · · Score: 1

    Someone was watching Nixons funeral.

  43. What?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think I'd call Guernica propaganda, and it definitely art. And I'm pretty certain the American Association of Editorial Cartoonists (who are meeting this week in DC!) would disagree with you.

    Whether it was Thomas Nast whith is Nast-y cartoons or Pablo Picasso with Guernica art has a long held, rich and powerful history of being political.

  44. Citizenship is a business relationship. by FatSean · · Score: 1

    It's very clear to me that our politicians care not about the country, but what their country can do for them.

    I have decided to adopt the same opinions. I was born in the USA and given the usual indoctrination about the 'land of the free' and 'home of the brave'. How strange the same people who railed against the commies because they spy on their people and lie to them, are requesting that the USA spy on it's people too! THey don't have to ask for lies, Bush already did that when he lied about Yellow Cake, WMDs and Saddam's links to Al-Quieda.

    As soon as it is no longer profitable, I'm taking my well-paid skills to another land to contribute to their economy.

    --
    Blar.
    1. Re:Citizenship is a business relationship. by robbiethefett · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the U.S. is full of people who are "outraged" enough to have the exact same sentiments. "As soon as it is no longer profitable" is when everyone plans on jumping ship. A good plan it is, too. Sit around, complain passionately about problems within our country, make idle threats at immigrating somewhere, and then turn on the TV and forget what was bothering you.

      --
      "Luke, you've switched off your targeting computer, what's wrong?"
  45. Re: Government despair by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

    What I don't understand is why the same people that look with despair upon our president and congress want our government doing so much to begin with (like expanding its involvement in health care one one side of the political spectrum or deporting hard working people because they were born to the wrong parents at the wrong latitude/longitude on the other). We do have a pretty good country over all, but its the people that make it that way and our elected officials either spend their time pointing fingers at each other or writing laws that take away our rights.

  46. Next Election? by lymond01 · · Score: 1

    Captain America Returns
    Issue #1
    Jan 2009

    The Evil Administration has finally convinced the American People that it is a self-serving entity and they are merely its pawns. It is shown that Evil shall not triumph in a Democracy as voters turned out in droves for the November election. In a landslide victory, a new President is voted into the White House, one whom the People can trust and in which they place their hopes in a New American Dream.

    Meanwhile...in a Top Secret Facility in an Undisclosed Location:

    Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeep...Beep...Beep...Beep...

    "Gentlemen. We have a heartbeat..."

    You KNOW it's going to happen. :-)

    (Winnie the Pooh capitalization intended)

  47. Re:How do you figure this is a slam on the governm by mikelieman · · Score: 1

    Thank YOU Mr. Spoiler!

    Man, is Tony Stark an asshole, or what? "Recovering Alcoholics"... Can't really trust 'em, can you?

    --
    Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
  48. If only superheroes were stronger than Bush by purpleraison · · Score: 1
    If it was a slam on the government, Spider man wouldn't have had 'depression' but rather an 'economic downfall'. Also, there's no way superheroes could beat Bush and Cheney because, they make their own laws, much in the same fashion that they make their own separate branch of the government.

    So all the superheroes would be sitting around saying 'next year can only get better, right?'

    --
    I am open source, and Linux baby!
  49. Nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been meaning to read Civil War but haven't gotten around to it. Thanks for the spoiler.

  50. Spiderman... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is a fag.

  51. Re:How do you figure this is a slam on the governm by Steeltalon · · Score: 1

    /shrug I'd put the blame for any spoilers squarely on the shoulders of whomever posted this as a story. You can't possibly have a decent discussion about Captain America's death without discussing the circumstances that brought it on.

    --
    Regards, Ian
  52. man... by BugAttack · · Score: 1

    i seriously thought the post said, captain -planet- buried, and was wondering why so many people cared.

    --
    My, slashdot, this field I'm typing into has the perfect dimensions!
  53. Re:To the author... [SPOILERS] by Kelbear · · Score: 1

    There's more material in the story that I think you missed. The overall point is that Capt. America's side = good. And the other side = bad. There was no attempt at creating a moral grey area here. "Was it worth it?" Tony Stark himself admits on a full-page spread on his knees in front of Capt. America's corpse, that no, it wasn't worth it. There's a long list of characters spiting registration characters as being "eeeeeeevil". Very very few situations showing the obvious downsides of letting anybody stomp over anybody else's rights without having to be responsible fo rit.

    The Civil war itself was never grey. The parallel is cops. Registration is just turning vigilantes into cops with responsibility and accountability. I think slashdot would favor cops having to answer for their actions and having limits to their power. The main anti-registration arguments have no real-world parallels, and are invented solely for the purpose of making anti-registration be the "good" side(secret identities can be stolen by super-villains, and these guys are born with super powers, unlike guns for cops). So the story's events are heavily bent towards Capt. America's side for the purpose of political allegory.

    This administration has screwed Americans, I agree. But Civil war? Not at all subtle or effective.

  54. Details by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Clinton was disbarred in his home state. Clinton could not be convicted. Perjury and redundant obstruction charge wouldn't make it because they were not relevant to the case. Even when they are relevant its difficult to win such cases. The case died from lack of merit (even after the irrelevant disclosure) as well as the accuser actually perjuring herself. Clinton was lucky he stopped them from getting his nude body into court because Star purposely leaked everything.

    Ironically, its what Libby actually was convicted of and just pardoned. Yes, I said PARDON because if it looks like a duck... The fine is TINY and his public 'record' is not a big deal in his situation. I bets he gets a spot in FOX NEWS like O.North if not a full pardon in a few years if he asks for one.)

    The way they impeached clinton was almost like a setup to scare anybody from attempting it again. The democrats don't have a liberal media to defend the case for impeachment and I doubt many have the guts even if they had that support. The "liberal" media loved the lead up to and then the actual clinton impeachment. Bush still gets an easy ride, if you think otherwise your just plain ignorant.

    Something I've not seen anybody mention, is that their spying did "inadvertently" include officials and their families on their phones and internet. Foley voted the way they wanted and they kept a lid on his interns; I wonder what they have on Liberman? (I never liked him but he has changed sides.)

    Given the corporate takeover of government (more a form of engineered consent,) I'm also not sure to what degree private organizations are getting into the really dirty politics.

    Will Vista's adoption (MS spyware) coincide with an increase in microsoft's influence on government?
    Will ATNT datamine their way to killing net neutrality for good? (plus they can still use the old "contribution" methods. Some of those net neutrality Democrats are really just asking for "contributions.")

    "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."
    -Frederick Douglas

    Liberty will continue to be lost.

  55. Constitution was a coup d'eta by protolith · · Score: 1

    I thought it was a Coupe de Ville

  56. question about comics, comic books by Speare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm wondering whatever happened to the NON-spandex type of comic book for kids? I know about the old days of moralistic censorship, and enjoyed "Understanding Comics" by McCloud, but I'm not seeing ANY kind of modern comic that doesn't involve stretchy or musclebound heroics. The only thing you find in the bookstores are strip-compendiums, like Garfield/Peanuts (too simple for my kid), or Calvin&Hobbes (some humor too esoteric). The rest are very expensive translations of Manga, a fair bit of which is not really pre-teen suitable. As bad as I think Disney can be for rotting your brain, I grew up with all the Scrooge McDuck titles and it at least gave me an early appreciation for the sequential-art mode of storytelling.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:question about comics, comic books by FreudianNightmare · · Score: 1

      You think 'Peanuts' and 'Calvin and Hobbes' aren't /enough/? Really, try them again. I'm more of Calvin & Hobbes man, but I would still say that Peanuts is very far indeed from 'simple'. Unless you mean the good interpretation of simple, as in, without needless pretention or ornamentation.

      --
      'Speak softly and carry a beagle'
    2. Re:question about comics, comic books by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Manga? Shounen Jump is like, 4 bucks a month for like, 5 or 6 comics jsut right for pre-teen/tween(god i hate that phrase)/early teen/late teen if htey're geeky enough.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  57. Re:How do you figure this is a slam on the governm by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

    Isn't Tony Stark Iron man? That Sci-Fi show Eureka has a guy buy the same name and he even creates his own company Stark Enterprises. I wonder if it was planned that way or does marvel have something to do with that show?

  58. Didn't Anybody Read "1602"? by DataShade · · Score: 1

    1602 is a fun read, so I'm amazed there's so much surprise about all of this. Marvel had a fascist American government kill Captain America several years ago. The government was rounding up all the superheros, and with CA they weren't sure they'd finished the job so they tore a hole in the space-time continuum and punted him, causing an temporal storm that relocated all the Marvel heros to England shortly after the founding of the Roanoke Colony, a storm that threatened to create a chain-supernova of timelines, leading one of the Watchers to step in and take action.

  59. actually, you may be right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    comics are distributed via p2p. i've gotten over 60 gigs worth. i don't see a point in buying them anymore.

  60. Re:To the author... [SPOILERS] by snowgirl · · Score: 1

    but she soons gets over her feminine mood swing and comes back


    OMG, I can't believe you just said that... I mean, I know you guys think that there are no women on the internet, but we really do exist, and this is just like... WAY more offensive than anything else I could think of right now...
    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  61. Well I do give generously to the ACLU by FatSean · · Score: 1

    I write my congress people with pen and paper, and I show up for anti-war rallies. I vote for the least evil candidate, and still the congress has no balls and the President is a constitution-ignoring traitor.

    But go ahead, be snarky. It just encourages me to take more advantage of the system.

    --
    Blar.
    1. Re:Well I do give generously to the ACLU by robbiethefett · · Score: 1

      Hey, it's not like I don't agree with you. The question isn't necessarily how long will it be profitable, but rather how long will it be tolerable?

      --
      "Luke, you've switched off your targeting computer, what's wrong?"
  62. Re:How do you figure this is a slam on the governm by mikelieman · · Score: 1

    DAMNIT! I forgot the [sarcasm] tag again. Apologies for any misunderstandings...

    But Tony Stark is *still* a total Dick!

    --
    Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
  63. Re:To the author... [SPOILERS] by MBraynard · · Score: 1
    Er, I guess you spoiled it for me but I will order the trade.

    So tell me - do either of my favorites like Deadpool or Cable make an appearance? Or do any X-men?

  64. How am I suppose to read this?? by MBraynard · · Score: 1
    I use to read some comics and have a subscription I haven't been keeping up with lately (Cable/Deadpool).

    But tell me - if I wanted to read the civil war thing, do I need to read all of these books? Or just some? And more importantly, what order do I need to read them in?

    Here is a list of them someone on Amazon made.

    http://amazon.com/The-Marvel-Civil-War-Series/lm/R 2P7K8Y6O1T2VL/ref=cm_lmt_srch_f_1_rsrsrs1/104-9260 980-3050364

    1. Re:How am I suppose to read this?? by revscat · · Score: 1

      The Civil War cut across the entire Marvel universe. Yes, this was a marketing gimmick. No, I didn't care, and bought most of them. It was a lot of fun. You don't need all of them, but you will probably wonder about why various things are. Having said that, you definitely don't need the Young Avengers or Heroes for Hire.

    2. Re:How am I suppose to read this?? by MBraynard · · Score: 1
      Which ones DO I need? There is one just called 'Civil War.' Then there are 'Front Lines.' And all that other stuff. What order do I need to read it in?

      Interesting sig. Ayn's a hero and I really liked Starship Troopers (the book). Movie was oddly faithful, too.

  65. Re:To the author... [SPOILERS] by Sciros · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Heh, you should be offended at the comic writing more than anything else. The fact that Wonder Woman, arguably the most high-profile and iconic female superhero, is constantly written to be stupid and irrational in her actions, is astounding. Writers simply don't know what to do with female characters most of the time and often portray them in silly ways.

    --
    I like basketball!!1!
  66. He's really dead by ralphc · · Score: 1

    Wife (reading article on MSNBC): Yeah, but is Captain America really dead?
    Me: Yes. Wolverine sniffed him.
    Wife: Well, it's official then.

  67. King George was reelected ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    The fact is, most people don't seem to care. King George was reelected.

    King George was reelected because the Democrats ran someone so much WORSE that conservatives and moderates who hated his guts held their noses and voted for the lesser demon.

    The Democrats got the congress because the Republicans in congress didn't use their time in control to advance the agendas of the voters who elected them, but instead went along with the Democrats on enough issues that they decided "What's the point?" and "spanked" the party by abandoning them at the polls. (You're seeing that with the likes of McCain in the primary race, too.)

    There are (at least) two problems with a de facto two-party system:

      - You are generally left with the choice of the lesser evil in the final race. (Voting for either is voting for evil.) Meanwhile the machine has enough of a lock on the nominating process that even activity in the primary is impractical for anyone not already fully employed by it.

      - "Bipartisan" means that the politicians of the two parties have gotten together to run it their way and denied the voters ANY choice.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:King George was reelected ... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      King George was reelected because the Democrats ran someone so much WORSE

      Worse than Bush how, exactly?

  68. Re:To the author... [SPOILERS] by snowgirl · · Score: 1

    Heh, you should be offended at the comic writing more than anything else. The fact that Wonder Woman, arguably the most high-profile and iconic female superhero, is constantly written to be stupid and irrational in her actions, is astounding. Writers simply don't know what to do with female characters most of the time and often portray them in silly ways.


    Yes, I agree... we need more female writers in the comic book writer's group... Otherwise you end up with essentially Slashdot writing the character of a woman.

    I can see it now...

    1. Talk to woman
    2. ???
    3. PANTIES!!!

    *sigh*
    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  69. Re:To the author... [SPOILERS] by wezeldog · · Score: 1

    Good point. I don't think it is drawn that simply (pardon the pun), but an allegory like you describe, all the same. I'm not trying to improve my /. credibility, but I managed to make it to a Marvel panel at Megacon. Steve Epting and others where there to discuss Marvel and of course Civil War dominated. Apparently they were penciling the death of Cap at the time, but were not letting on.

    Someone raised their hand and started to ask "Since when has Tony Stark been such..." and before they could finish people in the crowd shouted out things like "an asshole?" or "a Republican."

    The answer was interesting. Tony Stark is, in essence, an arms dealer. Of course he's going to align himself along those lines and we shouldn't expect anything else. That would be out of character.

    Personally, I think they also considered that when they were crafting this storyline, they purposefully chose Captain America, the super-soldier-as-a-result-of-military-medical-expe riments, to represent the libertarian side. A nice juxtaposition, if you ask me.

    Re: World War Hulk: You may get your wish. The also said that don't expect Doc Strange to wave his magic wand and fix it all.

    I don't think Greg Horn is a fan of Iron Man.http://www.greghornjudge.com/images/Large/3%20 MsMarvel/MS-Marvel-13-F1-K1.EDITFACE.jpg

  70. 89% APR? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    That's certainly usury in all states.

  71. Re:To the author... [SPOILERS] by joystickgenie · · Score: 1

    They do make appearances but only as side stories. Nothing that is integral to the plot.

  72. real life? by spir0 · · Score: 1

    Don't we have enough real life in real life?

    I've grown tired of my entertainment imitating real life. Sure Marvel comics have always been tied to the real world to some degree (as opposed to DCU which is set in a fictional version of Earth), but I think over the last decade things are getting worse. All the stories are tied to real world events in ways which has taken the fun out of them for me.

    No I'm not getting old. I still read plenty of comics, just none by Marvel. Conan is fun. Fear Agent is fun. Usagi Yojimbo is fun. I can escape real life and be entertained.

    It's ironic that Marvel comics are aimed at a broad spectrum of readers, including kids, where the fun and entertaining titles are more "mature" titles.

    BTW - nobody dies forever in the Marvel Universe. Marvel told us that Hawkeye was "really" dead too. Death loses its impact when you know they're not really dead. They've done it so many times before that I'm betting half the readers' first instinct was "he'll be back."

    --
    The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
  73. Sweet! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > 'Writer Jeph Loeb has been busy working through the stages of grief in his most recent titles'

    Don't forget comics have an extra stage of grief: unbridled joy!

    That's when the dead guy's path crosses The Beyonder or The Molecule Man or someone with a time machine or someone with an Infinity Glove or someone threatens Death or strikes a deal with Death so Death barfs them up or Reed Richards invents a resurrection machine or Doctor Doom invents a similar machine or The Leader dabbles where he shouldn't or the dead guy's body takes an accidental beam of Gamma radiation while a radioactive spider bites him on his left ass cheek's infected pimple while the moon is in the second house and Jupiter aligns with Mars.

    And if that fails, a retcon (retroactive continuity change) always works.

    And if that fails, a reboot always works.

    And if that fails, a realization they can earn cash resurrecting them, as was done with Captain Marvel, killed thirty years ago by cancer, untouchable by resurrection for ethical reasons by writers all these years.

    I fully expect the dead Robin to be resurrected, preferrably by a bad guy who makes him p00p all over Jesus like South Park does. Ahhh, the joys of stomping all over something good for quick profits.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to disappoint. He is alive as of about a year ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Todd

  74. Largely the same party? Delusional. by Valdrax · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Do you really think the Democrats are better then the Republicans? As far as I am concerned they are largely the same party. The only candidate who voted against the war and will get us out is Ron Paul.

    People like you are the same as Naderites. If you really think this country would've been no different if we had Democrats in charge of the three branches of government instead of Republicans for 6 out of the past 7 years, then you're nuts.

    Ron Paul's pretty out there himself. While I respect his stance in voting against the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War, I think he's nuts to call the abolition of the Federal Reserve, and I think he's soulless to have opposed any intervention in Darfur. In many ways, we represents some of the worst tendencies of libertarians.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  75. Re:To the author... [SPOILERS] by Panzergheist · · Score: 1

    You could be a very rich woman if you taught /. what step 2 was.

  76. He Was 89 Years Old! by superslacker87 · · Score: 1

    How the heck could a superhero actually live that long anyway and still be active?? I'm certainly not going to miss him. Let's chalk it up to old age, especially considering he didn't actually have any superpowers. Even Batman's gonna die someday. He has no powers either, just cool stuff. Captain America had a shield. Whoo. At 89, I don't know how he carried that shield, let alone threw it. Don't worry, someone else will come back wearing the suit and the shield. Then I hope Marvel and DC put the two "superheroes" with no powers against each other. Batman vs. Captain America, who would win?

    --
    I run Ubuntu skinned to look like a Mac on a PC. Go figure.
  77. Ah hippies... by Panzergheist · · Score: 1

    What good are hippie talking points if hippies will never actually fight and not just protest for them? The difference here is that the spirit of America fought those who would take away liberty, while hippies do not.

    I'll let you dwell on that in your peaceful, pacifistic, bong-induced, meditative state.

    1. Re:Ah hippies... by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      The difference here is that the spirit of America fought those who would take away liberty, while hippies do not.


      I'm still not even sure what the hell "hippie talking points" are -- the only things Captain America talked about were the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which as I recall were created several centuries before the word "hippie" existed, and there has been quite a lot of blood shed to defend them, including in WW2.
      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  78. This is POLITICS NEWS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suck my balls, Zonk. There are important things going on in the world, and this is NOT one of them.

  79. Re:To the author... I AGREE 110%, take a read! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "American Spirit is all but dead." - by db32 (862117) on Tuesday July 03, @09:21AM (#19729519)

    My man, God Bless you, for speaking your mind here... because most ALL of the U.S.A. IS WITH YOU, but in fear for their lives (via their jobs etc. et al being put @ risk, by speaking their minds).

    E.G.-> Do you know, that in Atlanta Ga. U.S.A. for instance, IF you are a war protestor? They will surveil your phone & home??

    That's right... see here:

    http://foi.missouri.edu/firstamendment/protesting. html

    Jesus Christ (pardon me Lord, but I am not using your name in vain on this one, FAR FROM IT)...

    Our "inalienable rights" are being alienated... our ability to SPEAK OUR MINDS, without fear of retribution!

    (And, that's ONLY A SINGLE EXAMPLE!)

    WTF!

    Well, not everyone is afraid to stick up for themselves (and I have never been in the past, & came out ontop of the city I live in, for Police Brutality, no less in court)... & I am doing so again, vs. some cyberstalker creeps named Jeremy Reimer, & Jay Little, here:

    http://www.windowsitpro.com/articles/index.cfm?art icleid=41095&cpage=211#feedbackAnchor

    Most people just give up... I never do, especially IF/WHEN I KNOW, I AM RIGHT!

    APK

    P.S.=> I can understand though, when/why folks do - they are worried about this "homeland security" that is just a way to keep US, the U.S. Citizenry, in fear for our lives & those of our kids (keep your mouth shut, hold onto your job, etc. et al being the line of thinking I think that prevails amongst most folks today, because of the stuff from Atlanta I noted above (which is NOT isolated to Atlanta Ga. only))... apk

  80. First sentence is wrong. by Thad+Boyd · · Score: 1

    "Earlier this year Captain America was slain as the climax to Marvel Comics' Civil War event."

    No he wasn't. He surrendered to Iron Man as the climax to Civil War. He was assassinated after the end of the that story.

  81. hee hee by tcc3 · · Score: 1

    Tell me that pun was on purpose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timely_Comics

  82. Re:To the author... [SPOILERS] by snowgirl · · Score: 1

    Sex Tips for Geeks by ESR.

    I know it's by ESR, and some people might put that off, but trust me, it really excited me to think about a guy actually doing what he recommends.

    It really is good advice for you guys out there...

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  83. Re:Largely the same party? Delusional. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ron Paul's pretty out there himself. While I respect his stance in voting against the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War, I think he's nuts to call the abolition of the Federal Reserve, and I think he's soulless to have opposed any intervention in Darfur. In many ways, we represents some of the worst tendencies of libertarians. Ron Paul is against many things that our federal government is currently responsible for. He thinks the Dept. of Ed., the DOE, Medicare/Medicaid should be abolished, as well as privatizing Social Security. Abolishing the Federal Reserve is one thing in this area I agree with him on in an immediate sense.

    As a side note, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are the only things our government seems to be able to administrate well. In fact, the government does a more efficient job administrating Medicare than private sector insurance companies do (lower administrative costs).

    The one and only time that the U.S. had a balanced budget and was debt free was when Andrew Jackson was president and had abolished the Second Bank of the United States.
  84. Re:To the author... [SPOILERS] by MtHuurne · · Score: 1

    Does this also explain Catherine Janeway?

  85. Are US comics even worth reading? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    Esp. with Japanese competition?

    i can read DBZ, Initial D, and even Bleach enjoy that all of the events are going to lead up to an end. That each of the characters involved have some sort of final outcome. American comics, except really awesome books like Warren Ellis' Transmetropolitan, just never end and the drama just never builds. We never get a sense that there's a deeper character there at all. We have vague outlines of what a character should be, but it's so flexible, it's pointless. Scott Summers, perfect example. Over the years he's been both an Emo Boy(Man now, I guess) and a really badass protagonist. How can I take that literarilly serious? How can I root for a guy who's backstory is super complicated, and probably has never had any effect on his current self? Batman, Superman, and Spiderman all have this problem. Batman has been working for over 80 years. I know he's a rich millionaire playboy, but for god's sake, RETIRE ALREADY. Superman's the same way! Peter Parker's hit over 40. In 10 years, the character will have been old enough to collect Social Security.

    Comics, American style atleast, are the modern day answer to Greek Myths. Very entertaining, very dramatic, but in the end, very shallow.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    1. Re:Are US comics even worth reading? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, but probably not the mainstream comics. That having been said, I've been enjoying the various Ultimate lines, especially The Ultimates.

      Otherwise, give The Boys a try.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Are US comics even worth reading? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      First - they're comics.
      Second - this allows for more generations to enjoy the mythology.
      Third - it is a different style of entertainment.
      Forth - just because thereon the some media, doesn't meant they all need to be the same.
      Fifth - Comparing a few Japanese titles and then using that as your point to rant against American Comics is small minded, ignorant and sheer folly. I could easily pull some great American titles to compare against some bad japanese titales and say that mean american comics are better.

      Finally, and most important, compare style and titles, not which country they are from. One leads it a nive discussion on style, they other leads to a bunch of patriotic cock waving.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Are US comics even worth reading? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      They're comics. Yes, but the question is, are they worth consuming?

      From what I can tell, comics have been in a major slump for decades and newer generations aren't enjoying the mythology. Comics are entirely for the hardcore fanboy/fangirl base. Most American titles you could probably name suck. I'm not saying that outright the Japanese comic industry produces better comics, what I am saying it is a better model for how comics should be produced and written.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  86. Ron Paul won't save us all by DoctorFrog · · Score: 1

    Actually Dennis Kucinich also voted against the war, so Paul was one of two there.

    Ron Paul was also one of two to vote against the Emmet Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, the other being Georgia's Lynn Westmoreland. The other 422 voting (including Kucinich, FWIW) thought it good to investigate hate crime murder cases from the Civil Rights era. Unlike his earlier circulation of blatantly racist pamphlets, Ron Paul can't blame this one on a staffer. (Which, even if true, only makes him incompetent - who signs lengthy letters intended for widespread direct mail distribution without reading them?)

    Quite apart from his history of racism and the fact his economic ideas are about a century out of date, Ron Paul is an even more extreme case than the current Republican crop of a would-be governor who doesn't believe in government. Instead of merely starving agencies of funds and using them as sinecures for cronies, Paul says he wants to simply eliminate them. New Orleans provides a good example of what happens when you make government "small enough to drown in the bathtub." What I want is good government, not no government.

    Even if he had a snowball's chance of winning the Presidency, which he doesn't thank Ghu, he would not be able to accomplish all the dismantling he'd like to - but he'd cause an awful lot of damage trying. People who hate government don't govern well, and I'm glad that despite his noisy Internet fanboys Ron Paul is not ever going to be President. I've had enough of extreme ideologues with overly simplistic worldviews in that job to last me a lifetime.

  87. Batman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Batman always wins.

  88. They'll redeem Iron Man and Reed Richards... by VShael · · Score: 1

    when it's revealed that they knew there was a Skrull invasion underway, and this was the ideal way to tag all the superheroes, license and train them, get S.H.I.E.L.D to investigate them all thoroughly, and have a ready made army in every single state, of super powered well trained heroes, ready to turn back the invasion.

    Or maybe the Hulk will just kill everyone.

  89. bullshit by Scudsucker · · Score: 0

    And Reagan pardoned a heroin dealer. Clinton made some bad pardons but none of the people he pardoned were covering his ass. The Libby commutation is the worst act of clemency since Herbert Walker Bush pardoned everyone involved in Iran Contra that could testify against him.

    1. Re:bullshit by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Libby was covering whose ass, exactly? Unless you're either (a) living in a cave or (b) hopelessly unable to separate a liberal ideology from reality, you'd know that Richard Armitage, not Libby, "leaked" the name of CIA "agent" Valerie Plame.

      So, Libby lied about what? Having a faulty memory? He couldn't have lied about leaking Plame's identity because Armitage did that. And all this completely ignores the fact that (a) Plame didn't meet the definition of a covert agent since she hadn't served in a covert capacity in the last several years and (b) the person "leaking" the name of the "agent" had to be aware that the agent's status was protected. Libby met none of those requirements. Neither did Rove, Cheney, Bush, or anybody else. The only person who could reasonably be charged with doing anything wrong was Richard Armitage who, thus far, was completely ignored by the special counsel appointed specifically to investigate this entire non-incident.

      Libby was a scapegoat alright, but a scapegoat of the left, not the right. Libby got convicted not to save Rove/Cheney/Bush, but because the Democrats had to produce a victim in their witch hunt or face humiliation.

      And, for the record, Reagan shouldn't have pardoned a heroin dealer and Bush shouldn't have pardoned the Iran-Contra folks.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  90. That is what the majority thinks by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    about Bush and his administration.

    Captain America used to say that sometimes a majority can be wrong. Like when a majority of Americans supported slavery, or later when the majority of Americans supported segregation and discrimination of certain races.

    The majority that supports illegal immigration, identity theft, voter fraud and terrorism are liberals. On those issues they are wrong. If we do things their way the nation will fall apart like the Roman Empire.

    Bush was reelected because most Liberals refused to vote, sure they'll give Bush a low number on anonymous online polls, but in real life when the vote really counts they don't care and refuse to vote. Because of that they are bringing down the Democratic system.

    Captain America died for the sins of the liberals, Captain America became a liberal himself and didn't think of the consequences of his actions like most liberals. Captain America used Cloak to teleport everyone from an unpopulated area into downtown New York to get an advantage over Iron Man's army. Captain America's men destroyed several buildings and murdered 30,000 people in an event worse than 911. Captain America became a traitor and a terrorist and then a mass murderer, when that happened Captain America died for real.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  91. Left Leaning by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

    It amazes me the overall left leaning Bush-Hate that has crept into this. I have news people Bush, Clinton, Carter, Nixon, the list goes on. The global state of affairs is the result of a lot more then just Bush's term. The problem we face now started long before we were a country, and will be around long after our country is gone. Get some historic perspective and let go of your hate. The blame can not be levied at on person, group, or country. World affairs is complex at best.

    As far as the political commentary it is the death of the American spirit where Cap. was the ideal of what America was and his death more then likely was born out of America realizing that we, as a nation are not perfect and with the movement of globalization the idea of America is lost. His character was too ideallic for writers to deal with in a much more cynically audience. With power inflation gripping this generation of comic characters a near-perfect human doesn't fit well with many of the other ... say... tier 2 and tier 3 super heroes.

    Here are some issues I see with Cap.

    1: He's an artifact of the cold war. There are no Nazi's and the Soviets are no more
    2: He is tier 1, he's not chucking cars at people and had to think more and with 30 second attention spans comics can't provide it. I have comics from 1960s to present and present comics, on the average are 1/2 as short. Even slicing up a story across 50 issues still requires enough pages for get a needed portion of story told.
    3: Using the current backdrop of politics it fails. From a broad "the corruption of government" it grabed only a little. You would still need to toss in corrupted activist judges, smarmy lawyers, an apethetic, lazy, citizen class who refuses to accept their own guilt for putting the corrupt into power, and a law enforcement system that is more concerned about capacities then safety.

    Stark should have been finding low cost ways to house the dissidents and release many of the most dangerous into house arrest programs.

    I think people are projecting too much of their own politica idealogy into this, trying to make it fit what they believe. It's much more simple and broad.

    ---
    "Those that hate rebublicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives, NRA, PETA, SPCA, GLBTAU have failed history. The world is a lot more complex and far from black and white and hiding in a narrow understanding of why things are only result in more anger, more hate, more rage, and more evil. Stop, Think, Study, Re-Thinking, Understand, THEN talk."

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  92. you incompetent boob by Scudsucker · · Score: 0

    Libby was covering whose ass, exactly? Unless you're either (a) living in a cave or (b) hopelessly unable to separate a liberal ideology from reality, you'd know that Richard Armitage, not Libby, "leaked" the name of CIA "agent" Valerie Plame.

    There were multiple leaks. Libby leaked, Rove leaked, and Armitage leaked. In an operation initiated by Cheney. Why weren't there more convictions? Because Libby LIED and OBSTRUCTED the investigation. And by commuting his sentence, Bush removed all incentive for Libby to start talking as he faced a 2 1/2 year jail term. Focusing on Armitage is a red herring.

    Libby was a scapegoat alright, but a scapegoat of the left, not the right. Libby got convicted not to save Rove/Cheney/Bush, but because the Democrats had to produce a victim in their witch hunt or face humiliation.

    Reality's well known liberal bias strikes again: both the prosecutor and the judge were Republicans and Bush appointees. Now, any more lame talking points you'd like to throw out? Maybe the canard that Bush kept reading 'My Pet Goat' because he didn't want to scare the children in the classroom?

  93. Not Arlington!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He didn't actually get buried there. He was buried in the arctic ocean, because well, Iron Man is smart. He knows if he buried Cap in a grave anybody could find, then some villain or desperate hero would just bring him back to life. (Doctor Doom I'm looking at you!!!)

    But with his body frozen in ice? Not a chance of him being brought back to life. The guy will stay dead for sure. No Zombie/Cyborg/Angel Captain America's to come back from the dead this time.