Moonlight Graham

Well, just I was. Dunno about you and Ghost/eyeball. Which one(s) were you talking about?

I'm most concerned with the 2nd video posted in this thread, the one with the blue screen behind the reporter. It obviously is in a studio with a blue screen and what looks like fake plants etc., yet they are broadcasting from "Saudi Arabia". In the middle of the "broadcast they are even talking with the reporter. The only possible explanation for this, besides it being a true fake & unethical broadcast (to save travel money maybe? I don't quite see some crazy military-industrial complex conspiracy though), is that it is some kind of footage from CNN practicing their war coverage, with maybe the reporter prepping to go over to Saudi Arabia (for real) very soon and getting practice in for the stress of real war-time reporting. It doesn't quite jive though, why go to all the trouble with the sets & costumes etc.? Also, who obtained this footage and how? Looks like the guy is recording it off TV on VCR or something? Then why the blue screen. It's just all sorts of bizarre.

Great article, thanks.

Is that second video for real? The one with the blue screen. That's almost laughably bad.

I don't think you're allowed posting full articles on here.

He and the LRA aren't a huge problem right now, they are only a hundred members strong right now. He is small potatoes as of now. He's a monster but resources would probably best be spent elsewhere. Africa has way bigger problems.

I agree they probably won't make any rash decisions. I also agree it could take as long as Bin Laden to get him because Kony can and does hop between countries, it's not like this just a Uganda situation, this chase would mean breaking borders of a few countries. But despite the powerful military industrial complex, voters ultimately have politicians by the balls more than anyone because we determine whether they are employed and in power or not. If voters scream loud enough and it won't cause too much trouble to national security, voters could get their govs to send troops just about anywhere.

What would it matter since he's likely hiding in a bush just outside Uganda, in a place that, for those that would have any access to media in that region, would already be very aware of what he looks like. It's not like he's hiding in New York City. I think the exposure just makes western govs more apt to do something based on public pressure.

The now-famous has done an amazing job at raising awareness of an important issue (Kony/LRA, and child soldiers in general), but the actual campaign itself is so naive it almost makes me vomit.As many others have criticized, the problems in Uganda are very complex, and the video is 30mins long yet is very skimpy on the facts on the whole situation, Supporting actions against Kony, let alone sending in US troops, will have big consequences, and possibly make the problems worse. The US gov has already supported the not-so-nice Ugandan gov over the LRA in the past, mostly due to the politics of the country having oil. Those people in the video cheering when Obama agreed to send in troops last year could be saddened in a few years when this very training could be used by the Ugandan military/gov to slaughter its own people, execute a coup, or any variety of bad deeds that are the product of unintended consequences. There is something very dangerous about an extremely uninformed and naive public pressuring government on an issue like this. These new supporters should educate themselves on this issue. I also don't like the way this NGO is trying to hawk donations and sell kits at the end of the video. Your thoughts on this Kony 2012 phenomenon?

How can you call it a hate crime if you don't know the intent/motive? For now it's a women yanking on another person's clothing. It doesn't look good, it probably was a kind of religious/ethnic attack, but there is no proof yet.

Agreed, I thought he wrote his OP.

Fixed.

Here we go again...

Heck, I'll play this game just for fun. Left & right are equally naive, because those who stick to ideology instead of being pragmatic will inevitably be so. Let's take the issue of healthcare: The left in Canada are naive in their insistence of sticking to the current universal 1-tier system in the name of "equality" without any consideration of looking at the possibility of more privatization or user-fees that could ultimately benefit everyone because of how stressed our healthcare system is. The right are naive in that, let's take the US right for example, they are locked in their ideology that state intervention is bad and won't look at the possibility of universal healthcare, even though statistically universal systems make for healthier countries even though they spend less on healthcare. The left are also naive in that they tend to be more utopian in terms of social & economic policy. Multiculturalism, for example, sounds all well and good, but in practice some of its policies have showed to be flawed and have caused many problems in Europe and Canada. The right is naive in their blind faith in the "free market". They believe neoliberal ideals like lower taxes, private ownership, deregulation, and open trade markets will magically make all countries more economically prosperous when statistically this has shown to have failed in many ways throughout history. Sometimes ie: deregulation works in certain areas, and not in others, it should be looked at on a case by case basis and not as a blank slate. The left are also naive economically, in that again they tend to be utopian vs pragmatic, Communism being a good example.

Pretty much. He's a religious wack-job, and a not impressively smart one to boot. Who is more the fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?

Part of the problem is that he doesn't look like Mitt Romney, and you can't fix that. I'm sorta joking in that I know that's not all of it, but it must be a factor. I think he also comes off as less abrasive and the stereotypical "tough guy" conservative male, which may appeal to women.

Well, here;s one take on it, linked within the OP article: My link

I don't want to pay for propoganda. This is robbery. It is basically campaigning using our dollars. Let the CPC pay for this and the whole "Economic Action Plan" campaign of ads. This shouldn't be allowed & the CPC should pay it back. For a party against gov funding for parties they sure like using tax dollars for their own advertising.

Don't forget Islamophobia. Anyways, there are always limits on religious rights/freedoms. If my religion said that molesting babies was part of a ceremony, you can bet it wouldn't be allowed. Same with honour killings etc. You should be able to practice your religion, as long as it doesn't infringe on other rights and laws of the lands, particularly those in our constitution.

Surprised it was so close in Michigan, and a bit surprised Santorum didn't take more hits in Michigan from his crummy Arizona debate and did as well as he did while Gingrich is basically toast. What a flip in momentum, what fickle voters. Romney is still going to win the nomination hands-down though. Santorum is unelectable in a general election. He makes McCain look like Abe Lincoln.

They are similar on many things, but to say things haven't changed much??? Were you in a coma from 2001-2009? There is a difference. They are both puppets of the machine, but at least one is somewhat competent.

Abortion Undecided, so let women decide. closest: Romney Taxes/Spending They all suck, but Romney is least nuts. Regulation Romney or Santorum if I have to choose from crap Entitlements Romney, the least crazy here. Afghanistan Paul, possibly Romney (who doesn't seem too hawkish). Negotiate with Taliban, get out, continue drone or air strikes if need be if possible from the sea. Santorum continues to prove he's an idiot on foreign policy. Torture Paul - no torture Iran Paul, though he's a bit too soft in his rhetoric IMO. At least APPEAR tough to Iran, Ronny. Energy/Environment Romney, the least crazy. Immigration Who cares. Same-Sex Marriage Ron Paul. The others eems to want to ammend the constitution to BAN gay marriage, lol Health Care Romney Education Dunno China Paul or Romney. Bailout Romney, definitely. VERDICT (out of 14 questions) Romney - 8 Paul - 5 Santorum - 1 Gingrich - 0

So you're saying the US/West maybe should have gone to war with the USSR and defeated Stalin. This would basically be the continuation of WWII or maybe we'd call it WWIII. So nuke a few hundred-thousand Russkies, or more, and install a democratic regime (good luck with that)? Maybe some boots on the ground too, which would have been a blood bath of a war. That's a lot of death in itself. Then we'd have to defeat the Communist Party in China and Mao, which took power in 1949. Another nuke job on them. I guess we'd also have to go after the Korean communists too? Maybe the threat of nukes and our destruction of the USSR would be enough to avoid actual nukes on China, but I doubt it, since they were in a state of civil war for decades. The US maintaining a nuclear monopoly would have been difficult, we didn't have precision airstrikes back then. It all would have been interesting to say the least.

Not to mention, many GOP delegates are already lined up for the other candidates. I don't see how a surprise last-minute candidate throwing their hat in the race in a few months can really win the nomination, at least without getting a lot of people (Romney supporters) PO'd.