The more I hear of this "Church" and this Fred Phelps guy, the more angry I get.

travo said:

What do you guys think about the UN intervening in the Libya situation?

It's a complicated issue, but the bottom line is that if human rights violations are occurring then the UN's actions are appropriate, particularly in this case where the countries most influenced called for this action.

Since I've been following this carefully, and know that the US had to be dragged by the collar into this by France and the UK it's humorous to me to listen to the foriegn press make out like this is a US lead invasion -- the administration and pentagon wanted as little to do with this one as possible.

Mostly ABC (Australia).  I guess I should have said that rather than foreign press.

aspro said:

It's a complicated issue, but the bottom line is that if human rights violations are occurring then the UN's actions are appropriate, particularly in this case where the countries most influenced called for this action.

Since I've been following this carefully, and know that the US had to be dragged by the collar into this by France and the UK it's humorous to me to listen to the foriegn press make out like this is a US lead invasion -- the administration and pentagon wanted as little to do with this one as possible.

So the US wanted to not follow US policy and not get involved? From the horse's mouth!

aspro said:

I don't understand what you just said.  But the administration and Pentagon did not want to go into Libya.  There is no way for them to have gotten out of it though, given the Arab League, NATO and UN support for it.

Referencing an Obama speech in which he stated it was against US policy to have Ghadafi power or something like that.

Royal Wedding.  It was only vaguely annoying until yesterday.

The BBC is distributing the wedding footage.  BBC - owned and operated by the British government.  Here in Australia they have licensed it's distribution to the ABC - owned and operated by the government.

One of the ABC's networks was going to provide alternate coverage using that footage in a satirical way.

It was advertised pretty heavily.  Yesterday it got pulled.  BBC says footage can't be used for satire -- they operate under Royal charter.

So footage produced with tax dollars, being shown on a channel paid for with tax dollars can't be used to make fun of the royals.

Not that I would have watched ANYWAY, but whenever the matter of the royals comes up here it's always "they are just figure heads, it means nothing" and whenever the topic of a bill of rights comes up its, "we already have our freedoms".

"Just two days before Prince William and Kate Middleton are due to tie the knot, ABC TV has been forced to cancel The Chaser's one-off live coverage of the event due to what it says are restrictions imposed by the royal family.

The Chaser's Royal Wedding Commentary was due to air on ABC2 from 7:00pm AEST on Friday, offering viewers a satirical take on the royal wedding.

But now the live special - promised to be "uninformed and unconstitutional" - has been reluctantly pulled due to restrictions imposed over the Easter break."

There are people already sitting in chairs in times square for the royal wedding watch party. What the hell.

Super Lame how can people get excited over this? Kings and Queens have meant nothing for over a 100 years. That Princess Diana  shit drove me nuts.  I mean who the fuck was she? big  deal people die everyday  with no fanfare.

^it must be hell over there.

I was watching all this on the TV, the endless BS, and I was like "well at least it will be over this weekend" (my assumption since there was so much hype)  and then the newscaster said, "only 17 days to go until the big day".

- Noooooooooo!

and since then it's gotten more and more intrusive.