ooo where did i see that before),
and the lazy in your face nazi symbolism of the villains.
Wikipedia and NYTimes were both Left-wing rags. Next time, try a source that actually IS unbiased.
They use something called "facts." As Stephen Colbert observed, facts have a well known liberal bias.
After Operation Desert Storm, inspectors regularly checked for any weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein may have possessed. They destroyed them all in the early 90's and kept tabs to make certain that he did not rebuild his arsenal. George W. Bush wanted to start a war with Iraq, and his first excuse was to say that there was a direct link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. When this was easily discredited, he shifted the motive to say that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, even though the inspectors never had any evidence of such things and openly said so.
A lot of the general public were already dubious about the legitimacy of the claims, considering his initial statements.
During the war, when it became obvious to the general public that the weapons of mass destruction did not exist, Bush shifted the motive again and said the war was to liberate the Iraqi people.
No, if facts have any bias, they aren't facts, period. Facts are supposed to be completely unbiased.
Coler says his writers have tried to write fake news for liberals — but they just never take the bait.
Also, if the general public was truly as dubious as you claim, why is it that Bush won a second term when they could have easily voted for John Kerry in droves?
And I noticed you completely ignored the link I gave you, because that general in question, Gen. Al-Tikriti, had been formerly Saddam Hussein's southern regional commander, actually verified, via videotape, that he was in fact housing WMDs, and he wouldn't have ANY reason to lie, much less verify George W. Bush was telling the truth. I may not be Bush's biggest fan or think highly of him, but I will tell you that Bush NEVER lied about those things. Maybe I'll post the link again, and this time, make sure it's hyperlinked:
And for the record, Colbert isn't a conservative, he's a liberal in conservative's clothing.
If an individual or group has a dogmatic, limited worldview, when presented with facts which runs contrary to that worldview, they will dismiss said facts as having a bias against their interests. Climate change and evolution are two examples which have been politicized and disputed in spite of their factual nature.
As an example, consider this news story:
It was a very close race, and the short answer is that people chose to go with the devil they knew. There was also still a lot of homophobia and opposition to gay marriage. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-bush-won-02-11-2004/
There are several problems with that article. The first one is that the purported interview with Al-Tikriti is not genuinely confirmed. It is described as "(covered in silhouette and voice modified)" This means it could really be anyone making those assertions.
Did you do any research on Al-Tikriti outside of that article? The information provided is dubious at best.
The WMDs still have not been found.
Stephen Colbert is what's called a "satirist." And yet you didn't know that.
Climate change has not actually been proven at all, nor has evolution.
Not really, from what I gathered, Bush actually won the Electoral College by a considerable amount
It's people who are against gay marriage. We have no fear of gays, we just don't approve of their lifestyle.
Besides, you DO realize that if Al-Tikriti openly showed himself, he'd be gunned down in public, right?
Besides, turns out WMDs WERE found in Iraq, and since it came from the New York Times (albeit grudgingly), one of your favorite sources, even you can't deny it:
Oh, I know what a satirist is, it's a person who pokes fun via exaggeration of a certain group or person. But you quoted him as if he were being serious about facts being biased toward liberals.
Both have been.
And on evolution:
Bush won 286 electoral votes to Kerry's 251. That wasn't that much. In contrast, in 2008, Obama won 365 to McCain's 173. In 2012, Obama won 332 to Romney's 206. In 1992, Clinton won 370 to Bush's 168, etc. Do you ever do any research?
Why? Salman Rushdie is still around. I met him a few months ago. He gave a lecture.
Valerie Plame is also safe here in the U.S, in spite of her cover as an agent being blown as a matter of political vengeance by the W. Bush administration --
an act which George H.W. Bush explicitly described as "treason."
They found a cache of very old abandoned chemical weapons from the 1990's Remember, we went to war because of claims that Hussein was working on building brand new nuclear weapons.
As the full content of this post shows, you do not understand irony.
No, actually, they have not. Name me one species explicitly confirmed to have changed from one species into another.
And as far as climate change, give me one reason it's confirmed.
How ELSE was I able to give you those links and quotes?
Donald Trump blew away Hillary Clinton in this election just by Electoral votes.
No, he claimed that Hussein was working on WMDs. He NEVER said they were nuclear.
I know what Irony is, it's basically where you deliberately say something the opposite of what you mean in a humorous or sarcastic manner.
You really don't understand what evolution is, do you? Click the links and get an education. Go to a museum of Natural History. Ask why there needs to be a different flu vaccine every year.
I gave you 7 links. Click on a few. Rising average global temperatures are extremely well documented. 2016 is currently the hottest year on record, which beat out 2015, which beat out 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
16 of the 17 hottest years on record have occurred in this century.
And so much inaccuracy.
Not really. And he lost the popular vote by almost 3 million. To win the electoral vote without the popular vote has only happened four times prior to this year. In all of those cases the popular vote discrepancy was in the thousands.
Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million.
And you do not know how to apply it to your own situation.
Evolution is where one species changes into another species entirely, and no, there IS no proven method of evolution
Definition of evolution
: one of a set of prescribed movements
a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding
b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission
c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance
d : something evolved
: the process of working out or developing
a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny
b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
: the extraction of a mathematical root
: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
Yeah, well, I don't recall seeing any polar ice caps melting or Polar Bears going extinct
the hottest year on record in actuality was 1934.
and it's gone through cooling and warming for millions of years.
Not really, a lot of the documents made pretty clear that there were indeed WMDs and all of that, and even one of Hussein's generals confirmed it.
Hillary lost the popular vote
More like you are trying to find a way out of admitting you were wrong and acting like Steven Colbert was a conservative and acting like facts are biased towards liberals when facts have no bias.
Wikipedia and NYTimes were both Left-wing rags. Next time, try a source that actually IS unbiased.
And BTW, one of Saddam's own generals confirmed that Saddam DID indeed have WMDs.
The prequels were better
MarReySue (for those that don't it's a play on words. A Mary Sue is a character that is so perfect at everything she does.) (I did not create the word MarReySue, saw it in another comment on here)
The Prequels had a literal Jedi Jesus.
Fighting through a battle Station full of Stormtroopers?
No Problem for a Farmboy.
Destroying a Commandoship?
No Problem for a nine year old.
Her Jedi Training with Luke comes in Episode VIII.
At one point Luke and Leia were trapped when Luke destroyed the bridge controll and Stormtroopers fired from both sides.
He didnt even break a sweat.
Anakin was a Podracer, Race Driver and fighter pilot are not the same.
Reys previously showed combat skills that came much closer to what she did in her fight with Kylo.
And where did Finn show any Lightsaber skills other than stabbing some Stormtrooper?
Force sensitives can use the Force even without training, the oh so much better Prequels showed that Anakin could use Precognition long before his training began.
So? Leia shot at stormtroopers while Luke managed to throw a grappling line onto some pipes and they were able to swing across. While the implication may be that he used The Force, it wasn't established as a particularly tricky move. Indiana Jones did similar stuff.
Apparently not in the Star Wars universe. Apparently, the controls are standard enough that if you know how to pilot one, you can figure out how to pilot another. This is implied in the original Star Wars and discussed and shown in Phantom Menace.
Why would Finn in essence bring a knife to a gunfight? The logical result of him going out into battle with a lightsaber, considering he had never held that weapon before, should have looked like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anEuw8F8cpE
The earlier films shows that some skills are instinctive, but, like real world innate skills, can be expanded and honed with practice, while other aspects (such as Jedi Mind Trick and lightsaber dueling) requires specific training.
So if a simple Farmboy just becomes Indiana Jones is not a Gary Stu?
Pod Racers only move foreward, a Fighter has to move within all three Dimensions, not to forget that he has to fire at his opponents.
Because thats the only Weapon he got.
Maybe didn´t want him to die to quickly.
They showed that some Force Sensitives already know some Force Powers, but they never establish which ones.
Anakin hat Precognition and Leia had Telepathy but Luke showed none before Obi-Wan started some Training.
Lightsaber Duelling is not really a force technique but rather a combination of physical combat and Force Powers.
There was never established that Mind Controlling cant´t be a instinctive Power, in Fact nobody ever teaches Luke the mind controll in the movies.
You should really give farmboys more credit. Luke undoubtedly has experience around heavy machinery and, like many farmboys, would undoubtedly be prone to mischief which could very well at times include swinging from rafters. Also, he used the grappling hook for its specific purpose.
Except, as shown in Phantom Menace, Anakin does know how to manipulate his podracer up ramps and control thrusts to bring in for a smooth landing. As far as firing at his opponents goes, the movie shows him pushing buttons to figure out the triggers and gets several wrong tries.
Not much of a weapon without training and skills. Pure luck (or bad writing) that he wasn't shot.
Why? What would be the motive, in the middle of a battle, to suddenly let things get that personal? It would have made more sense for the trooper to say "Traiter!" and shoot him rather than suddenly pull out some new staff-like weapon that lightsabers, for some reason, can't cut through.
One can presume, considering the dialog, that Luke has the same skills as Anakin.
And while it doesn't show Yoda specifically teaching Luke the Jedi Mind Trick, it does show Luke getting trained and learning various skills. There is nothing to indicate that he wouldn't have been taught the trick off-screen.
Maybe the Empire should hire Farmboys. Its not just the swinging, he killed a trained Soldier while they kept missing them.
Thats nice but has nothing to do with the controls of a fighter.
In a Pod-Race there are no opponents above or beneath you.
Because he hates his guts to much to kill him fast?
And he was good enough with this thing to kick Finns Ass.
Sure its a bit of a 80s thing but its not the first time opponents rather used their fists instead of guns.
Where was a Dialogue that Luke has those Skills, Luke said that he is a talented Pilot but so is Han who is no Force sensitive.
If Yoda trained Luke in Telepathy, the only way could be that he uses it on him.
And the same happened to Rey when Kylo scanned her.
As was indicated, he was already a good shot. Lucas allowed for dramatic license. The troopers could hit everyone except the heroes. This was intentional and hearkened back to the old B movies and chapter serials which inspired Star Wars.
It was a contrived scene in a movie which was filled to overflowing with contrived scenes.
The movie shows Luke as having an interest in mechanics. ("I was going in Tosche Station to pick up some power converters.") Obi Wan's line "I understand you've become quite a good pilot, yourself."
The subject isn't telepathy, but the Jedi Mind Trick. Yoda undoubtedly coached Luke in that technique verbally and with meditation.
When you watch the pod race, he does "fly" over his opponents in several scenes.
So if one movie makes it its okay but in the other not?
Same with Rey who had a little obsession with Ships and collects the parts as her job.
Thats just speculation. We barely see any force Training, for the most part its physical education.
There is no indication that reaching the mind of another beeing can be teached by meditation.
Thats not the same, all Pod Racers race in the same direction.
Sometimes they jump or come from left or right but thats it.
There is no bunch of Pod Racers that come towards you, there are no pod Racers come from over and under you while aiming at you.
A Fighter has free movement in three dimensions, a pod Racer is more limited.
A Podracer cant make a 90 Degree turn up and fly upwards for a mile or so, it can jump a bit but thats it.
There is a difference between a narrative conceit to establish a certain style (heroes don't get shot) and a contrivance for an action sequence which is ultimately meaningless (hero, with no training, runs out and gets into a swordfight against an opponent who would more logically just shoot him.) It would have made more sense if Finn had run out there with a blaster which jammed and led to his being captured.
It shows her collecting the parts. It doesn't establish her as an expert or a pilot until the plot suddenly requires her to possess these talents. When she does, she pilots the Millennium Falcon with more skill than Han Solo (flying it singlehandedly and perfectly lining up a shot for Finn). The movie states that it was her first time piloting that ship.
Except for the scenes where we see Yoda coaching Luke on meditation, which included detecting the Dark Side in the cave and seeing the future. ("Through the Force, things you will see. Other places. The future. The past. Old friends long gone.")
It shows all of the racers going in the same direction. But it also shows many of them crashing and Anakin having to dodge the debris. Also, when he jumps, he has to be aware of what's underneath him, of who is coming up behind him, if anyone might be trying to "leapfrog" over him, etc.
Beyond that, the speeds are apparently so immense that Anakin is the only human who can do it. In contrast, many humans are able to pilot the space fighters, indicating slower speeds and the ability to survive even if they respond with somewhat slower reflexes.
Enemies who duel in a honorable way instead of easy killing each other is just as much a style than the young heroe that succeeds where Soldiers fail.
Why do Action Heroes like Martin Riggs challenge the villains in a fistfight in Leathal Weapon, why didn´t Karl just shoot McClane in Die Hard
That was more of a luck shot and her interests in Ships was at least shown and not just stated.
Obi-Wan just mentioned that he heared that Luke was quite a good pilot thats no explanaition for military style pilot skills above the skills of the trained pilots that guarded the Empires newest Battle Station.
Not the same, because these Force skills are no manipulations of other persons.
He learned Telekinesis by moving objects and not through meditation.
Thats when he jumps but in Space, enemies can attack from every direction any time.
Come on its Space, it has absolute freedom in every direction. Its not the same as Racing on the Ground.
According to Wookiepedia the Max atmospheric Speed of a X-Wing is 1,050 km/h
A Pod Racer ca. 800 km/h. The Pod Racer Speed differs of course but the X-Wing Pilots are all human non Force Sensitives.
I never did like the climax of Lethal Weapon. With Die Hard, the characters and their motivations were much more clearly established.
And as shown in the film, when Pod Racing, danger also comes from every direction.
Actually, the movie shows her scrounging around the ships and selling the parts for food. It doesn't show her using them beyond that purpose. And her piloting of the Falcon first time out still demonstrated skills which went beyond Han Solo's talents after he had possession of the craft for years.
The point being that Yoda did give him instructions on meditation. One can just as easily presume that Luke spent several weeks with Yoda and that the movie did not bother with showing us all aspects of his training.
Dialogue in the movie:
Anakin: "I'm the only human who can do it."
Qui Gon: "You must have Jedi reflexes if you can race pods."
As you observed, X-Wing and Naboo Starfighters have primarily human pilots, no special Jedi skills required. (Unlike Pod racers)
Therefore, Naboo Starfighters and X-Wing fighters must be easier to pilot than Pod Racers.
I honestly believe this