Do we really need more Star War movies? Hasn't George Lucas made enough off this tired franchise? I think he ruined the original films by making the prequels, which were awful. The acting was so atrocious. Then to make matters worse, Lucas had to go back and change the original films by adding special affects not in the originals. Hasn't George ever heard the expression, if it ain't broke don't fix it? Thankfully I have a set of the original films on vhs. Not that he hasn't made tons of money off issuing a new "collectors" edition every few years. Always hyped with new bonus content. Same old movies but a few more bits of crap you might watch once, if you watch them at all.

George Lucas is the definition of someone that basically got lucky. The only reason he's made so much money off these films is because 21st Century Fox messed up. They didn't think the first Star Wars film was going to be successful. So they gave him the sequel rights and the rights to the merchandizing. Big mistake on their part.

Obama needs to sue the bastard for slander and libel. One for the book, the other for lying on tv shows about him. I know there are looser protections for public individuals like Obama, then average people. So even if the suit got tossed, it would be a signal that Obama not going to stand by let people lie about him. It would also might put some fear into these lying scumbags, that they aren't going to get away this crap anymore. We have to start hitting the right-wing lie machine where it hurts, in their pocket books. It's the only way we are going to end their poisonous influence over our political discourse.

What drives me crazy is just calling something a conspiracy theory, automatically dismisses an entire argument. Doesn't matter how much evidence you have, just call it a conspiracy theory and that's it. Case closed, no need to listen further. If you've ever had an argument dismissed like that, you know what I'm talking about. It's infuriating. It's not like people don't engage in conspiracies, our government charges people with criminal conspiracies everyday. Conspiracy to sell drugs, commit murder, commit fraud etc. All a conspiracy means is two or more people working together to achieve a goal.

Crust1 asks why the FBI is adamant on saying Ivins acted alone. Why don't they admit if he was involved, he had to have partners? Well it seems to me that the FBI is very eager to close this case. They aren't interested in saying he had accomplices, because then they'd have to continue investigating. As Gerald Posner (investigatve journalist) said on Countdown with Olberman, Ivins had no expertise in making weapons grade anthrax and no way of making it. Ivins couldn't of acted alone (if he was involved at all), and the FBI has to know that. I just can't believe the FBI is as incompetent as they are making themselves out to be in this case. So why are they so desperate to close this case? We need to know the answer to that question. But I fear we will never get it. Anyone know if Congress will investigate?

I have to ask the question, if Obama gets elected prez. Which will be the first country he will bomb? Obama is no dove. It's a sad statement on America, that you are only considered strong if you are willing to use military force. Diplomacy is considered weak. Of course this all makes sense in the military-industrial complex way of thinking. Unless we are using up our bombs and bullets, how else will we buy new ones?

Winsmith's post was a prime example of American Exceptionalism. While claiming he wasn't defending America's military assaults around the globe, he tries to minimize them. Saying other empires have done more, so America isn't that bad by comparison. America has actually been restrained in it's use of force, so we are actually better then others. Winsmith you are indeed defending America's military aggression, even if you claim otherwise. You are saying when America does it it's ok, while others are bad. That is by definition American Exceptionalism.

The genius of America is in our system of checks and balances, that tempers this base impulse. Winsmith

Can you see the flaw in your argument? You state all empires are warmongering, America the same as other, but our checks and balances keep this in check. Well most of the US acts of aggression (Vietnam, Iraq 1 and 2) have been done with congressional blessing. Our checks and balances haven't stopped us from bombing Panama, Grenada, Libya, Somalia, Bosnia etc etc.