Lafleur

[COLOR=DarkRed]I just found [URL=http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002331.html]this[/URL] on the web. Apperently, money supposed to go to extending and strengthining the leevies in 2003 was diverted to the Iraq war. Many speculate that the budget diverted would have been sufficient to hold back to flood water and withstand the hurricane. When the wiegggggggggggggggggggghtttttttttt come down...[/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed]New Orleans is Sinking, man, and I don't wannnna swim... Truely this is a tragedy. I heared reports that it would be six months before anyone returned to live in New Orleans, if they ever do manage to unflood the city. Afterall, the city is two meters below sea level and it's on the water, plus it was sinking the whole time. A tragedy of this scale was innevitable to the people of New Orleans, but I think that if the Authorities had known it would happen this suddenly and this horrifically they would have made better plans beforehand. Katrina's rampage isn't just reserved for New Orleans or North America, probably the most lasting effects will be felt from the fact that, as it passed, 95% of all oil production in the Gulf of Mexico was shut down, raising the price of an oil drum to well higher than ever recorded. Knowing the oil companies, they'll likely use this tragedy as an excuse to raise the price and just never drop it. Heartless bastards :animeangr [/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed]The whole concept of a rave seems stupid. Bah, I'm not a rave type anyway. Seems like a waste, and not really a good time. Somthing about going out into a cornfield, getting loaded, and listening to music designed to amuse Ex addicts seems like a very... unintellegent thing to do. Jam's are where I'm at. Don't even have to be any good on the guitar, just get up on stage with some buddies and rip. [I]That's[/I] a party.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Harry]The internet is an international domain, but the DNS servers are owned by a single company/group in the US(ICAAN). The US only has the power to block a domain suffix which it so far has done a grand total of once with this .xxx. Everything else they just haven't seemed to care. God this is a stupid statement. Creating hornysluts.xxx is not a right. Hell using [url]www.otakuboards.com[/url] isn't a right either. It's a priveledge that ICAAN has allowed you to do. There are no rights to you using something that you don't own, nor should you have any say about it. We wouldn't be having this arguement if the board of ICAAN decided to deny the request for the .xxx. We're only having this because you desperately want to find something to bash Bush for.[/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkRed] First off, I don't need this to bash MC Dubya. That's easy. I brought this up because it seemed dangerous. Secondly, your looking at this too shortsighted. Today it's a domain blocking, tomorrow it's banning anything that's anti-*insertcurrentgovernmenthere*. Besides, do you honestly think that if Bush didn't get the approval of the ICAAN, that he wouldn't have forced their hand? We're talking about a man who willing lies to his country, a man who time and time again breaks NAFTA and UN laws, do you honestly think that a silly thing like fair play would stop him? Cuz' I don't. ICAAN caved because they know what he's willing to do. Lastly, ICAAN is a private corporation. They have no obligation to comply with Bush and Co's every whim, which I fear may not be too far off. I'm not even just blaming Bush for this; this whole censoring the internet thing started back when Porn sites were required to put in sophisticated tracking and counting software (Which, by the way, is what we now call Spyware) for whatever reason. I don't remember exactly who put it in, but I know it was a Lib. This is about more than politics; this is about the 'We do whatever we want' attitude that's about to spill over into the Internet. And that, for us addicts, spells a disaster in the long term.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed]To answer Raiyuu's question, my first name is Alexander, which is Greek. As far as I know, Alexander the Great was the first Alexander. Due to his conquering nature, he was called Protector of Men. Therefore my name means Protector of Men. Neat. Oh, and Alexander is the 8th most common name in Sweden :animesmil Amazing what you find on the internet [/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Osaka]I agree. I listen to both rock and rap. I just thought I'd defend rap for a change. But I get what you say'in' :angel: People look at me funny for like'in' Green day, evannessance (sorry if i spelled it wrong), My chemical romance and No doubt. I can give two good reasons why. when I listen to rappers like, Tupac and Nas. I hear them talking about how bad things in the African-American community is. not like alot of thing are today. when I listen to rock bands I hear them talk about how hard it is to fit in or how you feel inside and stuff like that ya know?[/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkRed] I'd say you need to put down the New Age rock and pick up a copy of, say, 2112 or The White Album, or Dark Side of the Moon. New Age rock is to similar to rap, or blues, it's too complainy. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed]I do agree that the .xxx domain won't really shut-down porn sites, but that's not what it's about. The fact that the [I]freedom[/I] to do what you want to do on the internet is being infringed, that people aren't allowed to do whatever they want with the internet would be like saying you can't host kangaroo boxing matches in International Waters. There aren't supposed to be laws or restrictions or anything, that's why the Web is such a great place. Today it's a .xxx domain, tomorrow it's having some government orginisation monitoring everything you type, or somthing of that nature. BTW, this has nothing to do with the US other than Bush (And the rest of them) is the one doing it. It's the WORLD Wide Web. What happens on the internet is none of Bush's, or anyone elses, buisness and I don't feel anyone should even be alowed to try to restrict it. As I said, like placing restrictions in International Waters. Am I the only one tired of somone peddling their Puritan wares to make sure no one has any fun?[/COLOR]

[QUOTE]The Internet again in the political crosshairs August 29, 2005, 4:00 AM PT By Declan McCullagh Social conservatives helped to re-elect President Bush last year. Now his administration is returning the favor with a crackdown on sexually explicit material. As usual, the Internet is in the political crosshairs. The Family Research Council recently demanded that the Bush administration do something about the .xxx domain--a zone reserved for adult content and set for final approval this month. The administration was happy to oblige. Michael Gallagher, assistant secretary at the Commerce Department, asked for .xxx to be put on hold. Now its future is uncertain. The same pattern is repeating elsewhere in the administration. When Bush needed to appoint a successor to Michael Powell, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, the president could have chosen someone to relax Powell's "indecency" crackdown. Instead, Bush chose Kevin Martin, who holds even more expansive views of what's indecent than his predecessor did. Calling for a crackdown on sex sites through new taxes, regulations or prosecutions might make headlines--but it's just political posturing. Martin voted against airing "Saving Private Ryan" on broadcast TV, and his candidacy was embraced by the Parents Television Council. Now Martin has hired Penny Nance, an antiporn religious activist, to be his adviser. Until a few weeks ago, Nance was a board member of Concerned Women for America, which has a mission statement of bringing "Biblical principles into all levels of public policy." Bush's Justice Department has not been idle. Bruce Taylor, the president of the National Law Center for Children and Families who claims to have been responsible for the most obscenity prosecutions in the history of the United States, has been hired to lend a hand. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft was the butt of jokes from late-night comedians for his morning prayer sessions and his staff's decision to cover the naked breasts of a statue in the Justice Department. But it was Ashcroft's successor, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who targeted adult Web sites by burdening them with onerous record-keeping requirements. Those rules currently are being challenged in court. So is the Child Online Protection Act, defended by the Justice Department and opposed by mainstream publishers including Salon.com, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression and News.com publisher CNET Networks. Expanding 'indecency' Congress is becoming just as censorial. One example is a proposed tax on adult Web sites. Another is a bill approved by the House of Representatives that would boost fines for broadcast "indecency" from $32,000 to $500,000 and punish stations with possible loss of their broadcast license. Now the Senate is talking about expanding that idea to cable, satellite and the Internet. "We ought to find some way to say, 'Here is a block of channels, whether it's delivered by broadband, by VoIP, by whatever it is, to a home, that is clear of the stuff you don't want your children to see,'" Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, told reporters in March. (VoIP stands for voice over Internet protocol.) Even though cable channels currently are not covered by "indecency" restrictions, some have been self-censoring to avoid the ire of the self-appointed morality mavens in Washington. John Landgraf, president of FX Networks, told a conference in Aspen, Colo., last week that his shows are "rated, they're V-chipped and there's a detailed graphical (warning)." FX's lineup includes "Rescue Me" and "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia." "You'd really have to be blind and deaf to watch the shows and never know--we make it quite clear they're adult shows for adults," Landgraf said, adding that FX won't air racy shows earlier in the evening. "Even though technically we're not regulated and there's nothing the FCC could do, we feel that we have little choice right now." Risk of collateral damage The problems with Washington's new focus on pornography are twofold: It won't work, and it won't stop with adult sites. Calling for a crackdown on sex sites through new taxes, regulations or prosecutions might make headlines--but it's just political posturing. Sexually explicit material isn't limited to the United States, and persuading the Dutch to pull the plug on sites based in Amsterdam is as likely as persuading France to endorse the invasion of Iraq. The second problem is that antiporn laws are touted as targeting smut, but they end up being used to suppress unpopular ideas. Victims of obscenity law in the not-so-distant past include a literary review with works by Jack Kerouac and William S. Burroughs, Henry Miller's "Tropic of Cancer," the classic tale of "Fanny Hill," James Joyce's "Ulysses," and, in the last decade, comic book artist Mike Diana. Indecency regulations are even broader. The FCC has ruled that utterances of four-letter words can be punished--a sweeping categorization that includes news articles, dictionaries, sex education sites, and transcripts of conversations between the vice president and a U.S. senator. Technology including the V-Chip, white-listed Web sites in Apple Computer's Tiger operating system, and even the humble off switch are more effective ways to shield children from porn without collateral damage to free expression. But because politicians wouldn't be able to claim credit--or appease their social conservative supporters--we should expect more of the same.[/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkRed] Hmm... Well, unless I'm mistaken, limiting (or the attempt to limit) the freedoms of the people in this manor is the first step to a 'Facist Government' as according to Lawrence Britt. Even if they'll likely fail on such an endevour - the Porn industry is far to powerful - it seems to be a sad sign of things to come; or a desperate show of defiance from a dead administration. Discuss.[/COLOR]

[quote name='Attimus331']Dude....it's alright to make some mistakes here and there. You just made more than a few. You need to fix most all of the mistakes. I don't think i've seen a post yet that was flawless by you, as far as grammar and typos go. You asked me to be specific, i was specific, now you don't want me to "harp" on your mistakes. You asked me to be specific! Make up your mind.[/quote] [COLOR=DarkRed] Lay off, eh? Obviously it would seem English is not his/her first langauge, don't go mental on him/her because they don't speak the language perfect. Geez. I know lots of people who don't have the language down, doesn't mean that I go beat the crap out of them for it. The OB is a multi-national Website, and thus a multi-language one. At least he/she made a geniun effort to get the point across. Would you prefer that he/she write everything in French or Chinese or whatever his/her first language is?[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Harry]Increasing from nothing to miniscule. And your nosense about how conservatives shouldn't be running a country is pretty stupid too. Is this some kind of joke? Organized crime doesn't do weed, they do things that are much more profitable such as cocaine, heroin, and other things. I think weed should be legalized, but I don't kid myself into thinking they grow it in Columbia.[/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkRed] Well, they grow in A Columbia *Wink* No, it's not a joke. Orginised Crime makes 50% of it's profits from Weed, at least in my part of the world. If you made it legal than they couldn't sell it anymore; who needs the underground when you've got 10 plants sitting around at home? Oh, and how is my anti-Conservatisim nonsense? I'm firmly againts Conservatism. Everytime a con gets elected in my country we get bitten in the balls. It's no wonder I harbour hard feelings for them. Can you say Avro Arrow?[/COLOR]

[QUOTE] 1. Oh, and if the technical adult age would be 18, you can't always in every respect all them a kid. - ???[/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkRed] If the technical age for an adult is 18, you can't really call them a kid. -- Don't really agree, but this is what it meant -_-[/COLOR] [QUOTE] 2. That also doesn't mean that all of us teenagers that do drink illegally just go with a buch of friends to go get stoned at 10 a clock at night. That my friend, would be pointless -.-* Along with your regulars who don't give a rats *ss and go get stoned or something, there ARE and would be responible underage drinkers, just like you have very irrisponsible adults who love nothing better but to go drink with of buddies. - That paragraph has way too many mistakes and is poorly written.[/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkRed] That doesn't mean that all of us teenagers that DO drink illegally just go out with a bunch of friends to go get stoned at 10 o'clock at night. That, my friend, would be POINTLESS. Along with your regulars, who don't give a rats *** about anything, there ARE some responsible underage drinkers, just as you have very irrisponsible adults who love nothing better than to go out drinking with the boys.-- Happy now? [/COLOR] [QUOTE] 3. The facts are, no matter which age you choose and which restrictions you apply, you are going to get both sides of the fence. And there is no certain, 100% proof way to dertimine the 'lesser of two evils'. - facts? I see no facts. What fence? what does "100% proof" mean? What evils?[/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkRed] The truth is that no matter whitch age you choose to lift restrictions, you are going to get the bad and the good. There is no way to be 100% certain of the lesser of two evils. -- Make sense now? [/COLOR] [QUOTE] 4. hm...Maybe we need some talk about voting rights...like weather people are more suited to make an important decision about the government at 18 or 21. - weather? Is it storming over there or something?[/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkRed] Now your just being a nitpicker. [/COLOR] [QUOTE] If pot were legal it wouldn't lose its cool factor, neither would beer lose its cool factor to teenagers if they could drink at 18 instead of 21. That is the point. It does question maturity because 18 year olds are concerned with the "cool factor" (damn i'm tired of saying that...cool factor, it sounds so dumb) because they're immature.[/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkRed] Your wrong in one respect. Pot, in it self, is NOT a bad thing. Being a cigg smoker is MUCH worse than being a pothead in most respects but one. The fact that Pot is illegal forces orginised crime to have massive grow-ops, which in turn causes people to have to become underground punk losers too get it. If everyone was allowed to own 10 pots plants legall you could virtually wipe out orginised crime, and than the cops could get back to busting real criminals. Making a plant that grows naturally in the Americas illegal is the only crime I see here.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Harry]Let's all move to the magical land of Canada where nothing ever goes wrong and it just so f'ing awesome!!! Also the younger generation never votes, so it doesn't matter what the youngins think.[/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkRed] I never said it was f'ing awesome. I meant that we've never elected a Conservative twice in a row; must be doing somthing right. And yes, the number of younger generation voters is increasing every year.[/COLOR]

[quote name='Sage]You couldn't get a debate over the age of becoming an adult, so you start a debate over anything? This thread is going [I]majorly[/I'] off-topic, you know? ;P[/quote] [COLOR=DarkRed] Meh. Whatever's fun.[/COLOR]

[quote name='Attimus331']I didn't know you lived in America...[/quote] [COLOR=DarkRed] I don't... But I've been there. Besides, a country that elects Bush twice must be doing somthing wrong with it's younger generation/[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Attimus331]Kuroshin, i'm simply asking that you go back and reread what you wrote so that you can make the understanding of your post more coherent. Is that a bad thing to ask? I mean i serisouly did not understand what you said the last time! I'm not trying to be mean. I reread my post to correct typos and whatnot, you should too. Sure there is a "cool factor" involved, but it's only for those couple of stupid teenagers that care about being "cool". If drinking were made legal at an eariler age then that age group would have a lot more drinkers. I'm sure of this. Sure, there might be less of a cool factor, but can you really imagine drinking not being consdered cool??? I mean look at all the money put into advertisements by the beer companies. Remember the Budweiser frogs? Or the twins campaign? If it were made legal in would only be slightly less cool. Yes, i realize there is not nearly as much hype in Europe about drinking. It's a change in culture and the views of drinking by society. If America could somehow manage to adopt these views i wouldn't agree with the drinking restrictions, but that's not the case, and in all honesty i doubt it would be easy to accomplish... The pot thing was a valid point, don't tell me it wasn't. I was replying to what Ilium said about the cool factor. I was giving an example. Pot would become more popular if made legal, regardless of the cool factor. It's even a better point than beer! Pot isn't addictive like alcohol is. Since you don't have to look at addiction in the situation of pot the cool factor apparantly doesn't have a very big influence, legality does.[/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkRed] Canada see's the exact same adds. The same culture is superimposed on Canada. We have restrictions lifted at 18. We still have one of the lowest percentage of alchol abuse in the developed world. The 18-year-old voters make the better decision, mostly, and the country is just more stable in general. As I said, even if the 18-year-old thing looks bad on paper, it [I]does[/I] work.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Retribution][SIZE=1]One could argue that the reason people drink and smoke underage is because it's something they're told not to do. Just like if someone says "Whatever you do, DO NOT open up the refrigerator. I'm not kidding. You don't want to see what's in there," people will want to see what's so special inside, and will probably go to great lengths to open it. Heck, I know people who drink just to rebel against The Man or their parents or the government or whatever. So if you lift the restrictions (Europe) and place them at a younger age, then the hype of getting drunk is gone, and no one will do it. Of course there's always the side of the coin that argues if you do this, people will go crazy.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkRed] I don't think that the other side of the coin has much to go on, though. Even if their arguement looks good on paper, the fact is that places with the restrictions lifted at 18 tend to have less drunkards and less violent people. Seems that it works better, leads to a more stable society. Do I know why? Nope. But all round it seems that places were the restrictions are lifted at 18 do tend to be more stable, sensble places.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed]Has anyone else ever heard the amazingly underrated band Sandbox? They're a band that never really achieved super-popularilty, but they really should have. They're a Can-Rock band based in Nova Scotia, and they were a round for quite a while. They have a few albums out, but my favourite is the Murder at the Glee Club. What first drew me to this band is that the lead guitarist is the absolutly amazing Mike Smith, better known as Bubbles from the amazingly funny Trailer Park Boys. He's easily one of the most underrated guitarists of our time; I'd place him up with Hendrix or Clapton easy, though the band doesn't really do him justice. I really like Sandbox's sound, I only found out about them today and I already love them. So does anyone else know/like Sandbox? If not, download a few songs: you might be plesently surprised.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth][these discussions move quickly!] Actually, you aren't supporting the troops. You are supporting the end of a war. You are supporting their coming home. You aren't supporting their current job whatsoever! Oh, give them the credit they deserve. Soldiers are well aware of the possibility of entering a conflict with any possiblity of a rival nation, or threat to our nation. I'm not saying the Iraq war was justified. I'm just saying that the soldiers have made that choice beforehand.[/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkRed] Notice I said etc.? Coming home safely seems to be a major factor in supporting the troops, since if you don't support them coming home safely what can you support them for? Supporting the troops isn't about just supporting their actions. They don't have a choice about their actions, usually. Just because they're aware of it doesn't mean that they agree with the war. Or that they have the chance to go to war in the war they don't agree with. [/COLOR]

[quote name='Attimus331']That might be it. I live with a korean mother though, so i deal with the same stuff, but probably not on as large of a scale. Although now we're getting off subject, aren't we?[/quote] Yes we are. Let us fan the flames of arguementive hate! [COLOR=DarkRed] Gona respond to the "I apologise. Your grammar was so hurendous that I could not understand the point the first time. Now, after re-reading it, I fail to see the point even further. Better decisions? Such as? Be it 18 or 21, your still going to make brash dicisions, your still going to act virtually the same way. On paper, it doesn't make a significant difference. Besides, it's a well-documented phenomenon that when things are legal they suddenly become less cool. When you take away all the shady, underground, rebelious stuff, they lose a lot of custumers." or shall I asume the point conceeded?[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Attimus331]Hahahaha, calling me out on my i's are ya?? Ahahahaha. Dude, if you can't see the problems with that post then you must be on the same level as him/her. Or you didn't read it like you didn't read mine. Man...i'm a jerk, aren't i? Sorry. Really not trying to make people angry...[/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkRed] Dunnu mate, made perfect sense to me. I live in Quebec where French-Canadians who try to speak English tend to speak like that; with problematic grammar and syntax etc etc. Translation comes naturally to me. [/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Attimus331]Uhmm...i'll be honest with you, i'm not entirely sure what you just said. You're grammar is pretty horrendous...maybe you should go back and edit it. I wasn't calling them a kid in a technical aspect...i was saying in my opinion they're a kid because of the pathetically stupid choice that they made. And you can't point out that single group that drinks responsibly, you've got to look at the majority. The majority of teenagers that drink irresponsibly do irresponsible things. And that's all i can really say considering i really don't know what else you said...[/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkRed] Made sense to me. Don't call people on their grammar if you can't be bothered to capitalize your I's. What's not to understand? [/COLOR] [QUOTE=Attimus331]Uhmm...i'll be honest with you, i'm not entirely sure what you just said. You're grammar is pretty horrendous...maybe you should go back and edit it. I wasn't calling them a kid in a technical aspect...i was saying in my opinion they're a kid because of the pathetically stupid choice that they made. And you can't point out that single group that drinks responsibly, you've got to look at the majority. The majority of teenagers that drink irresponsibly do irresponsible things. And that's all i can really say considering i really don't know what else you said... To Ilium. I didn't say it was throwing away your education, i said it was risking it. Try reading what i wrote next time. Also i don't want to talk about Canada, we're talking about America....i felt like i've said this already... And dude, the whole 21 point is to make better decisions, not to get drinking "out of the way".[/QUOTE] I'm using Canada as a comparison. Canada uses the 18 system and it gets along fine. Better, in fact, in the area in question. [COLOR=DarkRed] I apologise. Your grammar was so hurendous that I could not understand the point the first time. Now, after re-reading it, I fail to see the point even further. Better decisions? Such as? Be it 18 or 21, your still going to make brash dicisions, your still going to act virtually the same way. On paper, it doesn't make a significant difference. Besides, it's a well-documented phenomenon that when things are legal they suddenly become less cool. When you take away all the shady, underground, rebelious stuff, they lose a lot of custumers. [/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Attimus331]I would also like to add that this debate is to discuss the law in the US, not anywhere else. Sorry, not trying to offend anyone. Haha, that draft bs by Ilium makes me chuckle. Bush would never get the go ahead for the draft. It's called popular sovereignty, bud. The draft is way too unpolpular for it to ever come back...except for maybe in the most extreme case, at the end of WWIII when we're about to lose everything. Oh....right....drinking binges aren't bad at all.....and neither are the drunk drivers, right? Sure, those things aren't going to be avoided, i'm not trying to say that. I'm simply saying that a, straight out of mom and dad's house, 18 year old is less responsible than a 21 year old that has had a little more experience. The 21 law isn't pointless in any respect. You think if there wasn't a law the amount of teenagers that drink won't go up? That all teenagers that want to drink do drink? That's not so. The law does stop kids from drinking. By the way, if you're a teenager that does drink illegally, you ARE a kid. How stupid do you have to be? Sure, i've got a free education! But i'd rather go drinking with my friends! And risk it all! >_> Heehee, i think i get a little too emotional when i debate, sorry if i offended anybody.[/QUOTE][COLOR=DarkRed] I don't think that drinking binges in themselves are good things. But trust me on this, once you've gotten so drunk you think that if you let go of the bedposts your going to go flying off, you'll think twice before you do it again. Best to get it out of the way early, before it costs you a job or somthing else drastic. Meh. There's no 21 law in Canada and the drunkdriver percentage is considerably lower. As is drunken violence. As is pretty much everything bad to do with drinking. Lastly, CHILL, EH? Having a little fun now and again doesn't mean you need to throw away your education. Geez. BTW, that's more or less exactly what they said before the US got itself into the last disaster that shall remain unnamed.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Attimus331]First off i'd like to just say, i'm going to argue on the pro side, regardless of how i actually feel, simply because that's what i gotta do for the debate in my class. I think that having restrictions at 18 is a good idea. I mean, if there were absolutely no restrictions right when you turned 18 it'd be kinda crazy. It's like hitting a kid with a ton of bricks, it's all at once. You gotta go easy on the kid and ease him up to being an adult. If a kid that's been living with his parents all of his life all of a sudden had the oppurtunity to drink, smoke, and go to nudey bars right when he got away from his parents, why wouldn't he go crazy? Go on a drinking binge, get some lap dances, and smoke his life away. Eighteen isn't mature enough for most people to have those choices. I mean look at some of the people in your school, do you think they'd ignore the sin? Or would they go crazy with the drinking?? I don't think the draft should've been mentioned. The chances of that actually happening are so slim it seems irrelovent to me. And if there was a draft, i'd be a draft dodger, canada's a nice place. Hahaha.[/QUOTE] [COLOR=DarkRed] Works for the majority of the world. Heh, in fact it seems to be the opposite. Ever notice that in countries where the restrictions lift at 21, there seem to be a hell of a lot more violent acts and crime? Besides, drinking binges and lap dances aren't that bad; you do them a few times, get bored with them and move on early. Seems to work. Oh, and about the draft not happening, that's what they said in the 70's. Right now, when the US is only meeting 20% of it's recruitment qouta, the draft is very likely to be instated. Hope ya like hockey.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=DarkRed]Meh. I think that 18 is, for all non-biological reasons, a pretty good age. In my country all the restrictions are lifted at 18, not entirly true some things are lifted earlier, so it makes sense. Biologically, though, your body more or less keeps growing until your 21, in which case it stops growing and begins to die. Seems to me that's logically when you should become an adult. Meh.[/COLOR]

[color=DarkRed]Oh I have a great one. There a town in Austria called *******. I'm not kidding. I don't have the proof, but it's a popular tourist attraction for English-Speaking people; they go there to steal road signs that say '*******' or '******* Srt' or the like. The people of ******* (****ers? ****ingites? ****ingise?) didn't even know what the name meant to English people until during WWII, when Allied soldiers told them. They had a vote to change the name but they said 'To us, ******* is *******. It has always been ******* and always will be.' [color=DarkGreen][b][size=1][font=Verdana]Ilium, yet again I've had to edit your post for language. I know it was on topic this time, but this thread is supposed to be open for people of all ages to read. As I've said before, don't rely on the autocensorship. Either don't swear at all or, in cases like here where you couldn't really avoid it, star the words out yourself. [/font][/size][/b][/color][/color] [right][color=DarkGreen][size=1]-Raiyuu[/size][/color] [/right]