Heaven's Cloud

[color=indigo]I think that most of what has been written in this thread sounds good if you are not involved in the situation. But I also think that most of the advice in here is probably bad advice. From what you have written I think that your brother probably has some serious issues that he needs to get worked out. Unfortunately you won?t be helping to resolve those issues by pressing charges, here is why. First, your brother committed misdemeanor theft; however, because he took your credit card he also committed felony fraud. Now the consequences of his crime added on top of his probation will probably land fifteen to thirty days of jail time (which is a lot for three hundred dollars, if you really think about it) but that isn?t the real kicker. The real kicker is that his legal fees and court (even if he hires a public defender) will easily top two thousand dollars. Obviously your brother doesn?t have that kind of money, or he wouldn?t have robbed you. Most likely this money would have to come from your folks or a loved one. I am sure that your brother would promise to pay the money back; however, felony fraud isn?t going to help him land too many jobs (he?ll have lost his current job after serving jail time) that are willing to pay more than a minimum salary. More than likely by pressing charges on your brother you will just end up contributing to a deeper underlying problem. Also, his punishments would not really fit the crime. I am not saying that your brother should go unpunished. First, I would make him pay you back the entire three hundred dollars. Don?t take it back all at once if he cannot afford it, however, penalize him and add a small bit extra to the amount. Second, and most importantly, sit him down with your parents and talk to him. While he did do a very terrible thing by not only committing theft but also betraying a family member, he also did come clean about it (which is somewhat admirable considering he probably wouldn?t have been caught). My guess is that something is going on, whether it is addiction or a gambling debt or some form of depression. Then help him get the help he really needs. I know that your husband is mad at him and you are furious with him as well, and I think you have the right to be. He ruined the relationship you and your family used to have with him. You need to tell him that it is going to be a long time before he can salvage your trust and respect for him. You need to decide whether or not your brother is a good person that has done some astronomically moronic things or just a real ****head with little redeeming qualities. This whole post is based on the fact that he is the former and not the latter. Everyone needs second and third and fourth chances, besides, you have a year to change your mind and decide whether or not you wish to press charges. [/color]

[color=indigo]That was the best chapter yet Solo. I got a good laugh out of quite a bit of the story especially... [quote]"You!" "ME!" "Heh." "Us!" Rei stepped forwards, brandishing her outfit with? frills. The ?host? gulped. "You." Kei threw Mini-Lothar at SSJDigiCloud. "Don?t even think about getting us into a pointless cycle of personal pronouns! Just finish it and get out of here."[/QUOTE] That actually made me laugh out loud. [/color]

[color=indigo]I got a good laugh when the guy cut off his own ear...[/color]

[IMG]http://www.fh-wedel.de/~fi/images/duo35.jpg[/IMG] [color=indigo]...when the rolled up news paper is uneffective.[/color]

[color=indigo]Kongs glance up her skirt revealed Peach's most well kept secret...her affinity for granny panties.[/color]

[color=indigo]My favorite hobby is commenting on my favorite hobbies on internet message board threads labeled "Hobbies Anyone", "What Are Your Hobbies", and "n00bs hobies #1 fan". I find it almost as rewarding as finger painting (oh! that is hobby number two). I would probably say that playing music is my favorite hobby, while reading is the hobby I most frequent. If I could get paid to read books that would be so awesome.[/color]

[color=indigo]Ouiji boards are such utter tripe. Why just the other day I consulted one and asked it when I was going to die. I closed my eyes and allowed the supernatural powers to guide my hands around the board. You know what date it landed on? December 7, 2004! Hah! It is nearly eight pm and I still haven?t died y?..[/color]

[QUOTE=Siren] I lean most towards Existentialism, honestly. We make ourselves. We're not guided by anything except what we want, and the choices we make.[/QUOTE] [color=indigo]Although I have never been a big fan of existentialist writing, I do more or less agree with most aspects of the philosophy. Not only am I a big fan of the "individual" (obviously I am the greatest me out there), I also agree with the stress that existentialsm places on responsibility and consequences of your actions. The only aspect that I think is slightly under emphasized in existentialism is the impact that enviornment [b]can[/b] make on the human condition. However, you could always state that by being in control of yourself you always have the ability to modify your enviornment. God, how I love philosphy. It is so putty like.[/color]

[QUOTE=Solo Tremaine][COLOR=#503F86]Lothar, for example, is a character from the webcomic which Kei and I both read called 'Exterminatus Now', involving characters from the Sonic the Hedgehog universe. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] [color=indigo] And here I thought the Lothar plushie was a refernce to the Space Ghost charecter...then I remembered that was Moltar. Why that is relevant, I have no clue but I knew that it would be something you'd want to know. Oh well, another fun fan read...[/color]

I classify my clothing style as "cooler than yours" because I am an arrogant egomaniac that is exceedingly shallow and has a revolving wardrobe.

[color=indigo]If you are really daring you could tie some miseltoe to your belt and carry around a step ladder...[/color]

[color=indigo]I love telling derogatory and sexist jokes, they are funny. I have often noticed that the people that get upset or bent out of shape at racist jokes are usually uptight oddballs that have zero connection to the race being poked fun at. I think that most people can tell what comments are malicious and what aren?t. For example, when I make fun of blacks (why do they steal so much?), whites (die oppressors, die!), Jews (c?mon man, you have sooo much money, why are you being so cheap?), Hispanics (want to touch the hiney), and Muslims (actually I don?t make fun of Muslims ever, they are to be respected and feared?feared? Did I say feared? I meant loved) I am just joking. However, when I insult the French, French Canadians, and midgets, it might seem like I am just cracking a harmless joke but I am really brainwashing my listeners/readers so that one day I can launch a blitzkrieg against those three groups (although I will be superbly happy if I can just take out the French Midgets, I really hate them).[/color]

[color=indigo]Damn you kuja?damn you!!! Fun story, it is always nice to have a good laugh at James and Charles? expense. I also liked all the fanboy-ish references made, some of them were hilarious.[/color]

[color=indigo]Hmm, I don?t really think one is easier than the other to use as long as you haven?t used one or the other before. I didn?t get Photoshop until fairly recently and I have owned several releases of PSP so I am very familiar with it. Therefore I have a hard time working with Adobe because things are not where I am used to finding them. Unless you are doing serious design work it really doesn?t matter which program you use.[/color]

[quote name='wrist cutter']My dream job would be getting paid to do nothing.[/quote] [color=indigo]Damnit, you beat me to the punch! Geting paid to do nothing would be the greatest job [b]ever[/b]. I think that if I was already wealthy I would review vacation destinations for a travel magazing. That would be a great job. You get to travel and visit the greatest places on Earth, experience different cultures, and take part in different customs.[/color]

[quote name='Chabichou']What the hell do palestinians have to do with Turks? I'm not a Turk. In fact, I am closer to the jews in blood than to the Turks. [/quote] [color=indigo]Until the late fifties there were no ?Palestinians?, the Arabs in that part of the world were called ?Turks?. That is common knowledge. If you are a Muslim with roots from Palestine you would have been called a ?Turk? by the western world seventy years ago. The term Palestine was a politically correct reference that was adopted by the world that carries the Greek and Arabic roots that I discussed before. The Jews never had a mass exodus from the area that is now Palestine, which I have stated before, really, I am beginning to feel like a broken record. In the twenties, before the emigration of Jews from Europe, the area that is now Israel had a denser Jewish population than Muslim population. The majority of Israel was already Jewish. You cannot carry on a debate when the person you are debating doesn?t know the history of the region more than twenty years back. [/color] [quote name='Chabichou']Since when did every Arabic or Muslim website become biased? See, there's already racism right there! I remembered the story of that boy and merely looked up his name on Google?[/quote] [color=indigo]I never said that all Muslim websites are biased, but the one you linked to is. I looked those pictures and that story throughout the BBC website, as well as CNN?s and MSNBC, and I couldn?t find anything. Those pictures don?t really look very authentic. By the way, you more or less just accused me of being a racist for asking for credibility for a source that you presented. You sited a web page sponsored by Al-Ahram, a news source that is notoriously biased against the western world as a whole and constantly exploits anti-Israeli propaganda. I see no reason to continue a debate when someone is going to brush off the irrefutable history of a nation. In none of my posts have I said that the Israeli?s aren?t equally responsible for the whole mess. However, I think that the Palestinians initiated the whole scenario, and continue to perpetuate the incident. [/color]

[QUOTE=Chabichou]:confused: :( :flaming: Okay, there are a few things people keep stating that really upset me: 1. Why do people keep saying "The Jews were there first"? Is that the [i]only[/i] freakin' argument you have? Yes, I understand the ancestors of the present day jews used to live there, but just before and up to 1948, palestinians have been living there for hundreds of years. How come no body seems to have a problem with the jews coming in and kicking palestinians out of their homes just because this land used to belong to the jews hundreds or nearly a thousand years ago?[/quote] [color=indgio]Because the Jews didn't just come in and kick out the Palestines. The Jews never left the area that is now Israel. As I stated in my previous post (which I am not sure if you read) the Jew population was regulated and their position in society was opressed by the Turks. This wasn't a case of a group of people coming over to Palestine and taking over, it was case of a group of opressed people rising up and attempting to liberate themselves from an oppressive society.[/color] [quote name='Chabichou']2. No one ever seems to care that palestinian civilians are being killed, and at a much higher rate than even Israeli soldiers themselves! People always argue that the stupid suicide bombers killed Israelis first. OKAY! I get the point! How many times do I have to say that I don't support suicide bombing attacks?! That does NOT give Israeli soldiers the right WHATSOEVER to kill palestinian civilians! In fact, the only reason there are so many suicide bombing attacks is because Israeli soldiers killed Palestinian civilians in the first place![/quote] [color=indigo]Like Harry stated, Palestinian suicide bombers were targeting schools, hotels, temples and restraunts killing tons of people. These suicide bombers were encouraged and [b]funded[/b] by Arafat, who lead the Palestinians. I think that gives Israel a pretty good justification to attack those people (civilian or not) they believe are responsible for coordinating the bombings.[/color] [quote name='Chabichou']No body seems to care that there were many massacres after the Israeli occupation began. They were relentless. They lined palestinians up and shot them. The bayoneted pregnant women. The raped many women and right in front of their husbands too, and then killed them. They killed entire families while forcing the father to watch. This all really happened. Looks like it was a holocaust against palestinians to me.[/quote] [color=indigo]You are going a bit far saying the Palestinians are being massacared. This isn't the David versus Goliath match that most would have you believe. First off, the Turks (Palestinians) began the war in the twenties. They began the first offensive campaign against the Jews. The UN had to step in and defend the Jews from being entirely wiped out. Then the Turks went on the offensive again in the late thirties to early forties after encouragment from the Nazi's. To say that the Jews went on the offensive and began this conflict isn't just ridiculous it is wrong. I agree that the Israeli's could handle certian situations better. They did execute terrorists and may have even bayoneted a few innocent pregnant mothers. How many kids did one Palestinian suicide bomber kill whae he demolished that hotel. One undeniable truth about this whole mess is that Israeli's go after millitary targets while the Palestinians tend to attack innocent business establishements. Both sides are equally as guilty when it comes to violent pointless deaths. [/color] [QUOTE=Chabichou]This is one of the stories that has angered me the most. And no Bobba Fett, this isn't propaganda because it was all over the news. Not just the 'biased' 'antisemetic' and 'racist' Aljazeera: [url]http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/502/re6.htm[/url] Why? :( WHY???!!!![/quote] [color=indigo]Then please, give us a link o that same story from a reputable news scource, even the BBC, which tends to lean more towards the palestinian plight, would be fine. No offense, but your scource is less than reputable. I don't care if I don't change your opinion on this situation, but you are supporting your arguments with inaccurate, incredibly biased information. [/color]

[quote name='Chabichou'] I really don't see the logic in that. So Britain was already occupying a land that was not theirs, and just hand over this illegally occupied land to the jews? If they want the jews to have their own land so badly, why didn't they just give them Britain? No country has the right to occupy another country and do what they please with it. Unfortuanately, european countries at that time saw themselves as superior to others and gave themselves the right to invade other countries to rob them of their resources. They come to the Americas and kill off the natives and steal a land that did not belong to them. They wanted to go to india and the middle east to get spices and other luxeries. This whole problem was started because of these selfish and greedy countries. Oh and you think because the U.N recognised them as a nation it makes it legal? Well, the U.N made a mistake if they allowed the jews to go to palestine and destroy the palestinian homes and take over their country. I thought the U.N was all about justice and peace!You're only calling it biased because it's the only network that shows the atrocities the American government commits in other countries. The USA's government is one of the most decietful and selfish governments there are. The government lied about Iraq having nuclear weapons. You want nuclear weapons? Go to Korea -Oh wait there's no oil there.... [/quote] [COLOR=INDIGO] Yeah, and how exactly are the Palestines any different? The term Palestine is derived from the Greek word ?Peleshet? meaning ?sea invaders? and the Arab word ?Palastina? meaning ?rolling or migratory?. The original Palestinians ousted the Romans that inhabited the area just like the Romans conquered the Hebrews that lived their before. The reality is that the only reason that Jewish population was not greater before 1800 was that the Turks were restricting the Jewish settlements in Jerusalem. However, due to prior agreements with Napoleon the Turks had to remove these barriers. By 1880 Israel was jam packed with Jews. By 1910 there was a large Jewish population and a strong movement for the Jews to form their own government (they were often persecuted by the Turks). Jewish peasants were buying property from Turks and owned the majority of what is Israel. Obviously the Israeli?s aren?t blameless. Upon the conception of Israel the newly formed government claimed the land that the British gave them and sent many a Palestinian packing. My point is, you cannot state that the Jews ?stole? anything from the Palestinians since so many Jews were their (and being oppressed) the whole time. [/COLOR] [QUOTE=Chabichou] Anyway, back to Palestine. Whenever, any hate crime is commited against Jews, It's always on the news. Just the site of the swatzika drawn somewhere, and the police are on the case. But when the mosque in my community had it's windows smashed, there was nothing in the news. From everyhting I've seen and heard, people are in much bigger favor of Jews than Muslims. Propaganda is in their favor too.Shouldn't palestinians then defend their homeland? I know all that Boba Fett is gonna say is that the land belongs to the Jews. Well, I'm Muslim and in my religion we don't believe that. What if I told you that in my religion, we do believe that god sent down the Torah and the Bible, but Gods words have been altered by men? God finally sent down his final revelation which he has taken it it upon himself to preserve it. I believe what the Quran says. This is why I don't believe the jews have a claim over the land. Because it says so in [i]my[/i] religion. We do believe that at some point it was the jews promised land, because from my religion's point of view, the jewish religion was the proper one at the time until the Torah was altered. However, the jews/israelites have been denied the "Holy Land" by thier lord as an everlasting punishment for straying from the right path sent down to them from God to Moses and His brother. In fact this is stated in the jewish religion too. That is why there are even jewish people out there who believe the occupation should be ended. Even if jews believe the land is promised to them, why give them the land when the people who live there already have a completely different belief? Since when were jews better than muslims? [/QUOTE] [COLOR=INDIGO]Jews defend their homeland? so many of them have descendants that lived there much longer the any of the Palestinians. You are arguing over a moot, speculative point. The fact is that if the Turks hadn?t oppressed the Jewish population for so long then Israel never would have been created. At the same token, if the Jews could have looked past the past and tried to form a joint government with the Turks this whole conflict could have been averted.[/COLOR] [quote name='Chabichou] Looks like you have given in to the dumb propaganda which you claim to be so completely against. Jihad simply means "struggle", so it can take on many forms. On of them fighting for the sake of Islam. It doesn't mean we go and bomb Israeli civilians. That's not Jihad. Even warfare is discussed in the Quran. God tells us that we may not harm women and children and the elderly or even the men who aren't fighting you. Islam never takes the offensive side in war. We are only supposed to take the defensive side. If the leaders are calling for Jihad, they mean protect your country and people. When Israeli soldiers come to your city with bulldozers to destroy the Palestinian homes, Palestinians have every right to defend themselves. Sometimes they throw rocks. These are the civilians' only weapons. The Israeli soldiers actually see this as a threat? They are the ones with the guns and bullet proof vests and helmets. They actually shoot at the palestinian civilians and kill them because the threw rocks? A responsible soldier who is simply protecting his people shouldn't do that.[COLOR="#004a6f"]This is where you are wrong. One of the biggest problems is that the Israeli soldiers make [i]no[/i'] effort not to harm civilians. This is what makes the Palestinians so angry, bringing on more suicide bombers.[/quote] [color=indigo]I think you have also given into propaganda, you seem to be equally blind towards the situation. If a person is paying taxes to the government on which land they reside then that government should not be able to take their property and the owner has every right to defend themselves. If a person doesn?t pay taxes then that person should know that their property is forfeit. The Palestinians that you mention know that they now live on Israeli soil and are therefore subjected to Israeli taxes, it doesn?t matter whether they recognize the government or not. If you live in the US you don?t have to recognize the nation but you sure as hell better pay your taxes or they will take your property. As far as rock throwing goes, I think that point shows you naiveté. If a group of people are hurling rocks at you, you could be killed just as easily as if you were shot. I think that soldiers that are attacked like that have the right to defend themselves. Palestine had the chance for peace and Arafat spit on it. It doesn?t matter whether the Palestinian government was properly functioning. It doesn?t matter how much backing the Israeli government has. Time after time the Palestinian leaders have had a chance to make peace and time after time they ignored that chance. Personally, I think that all outside involvement in this whole affair should be concluded if the Palestinians are unable to compromise this time around. The two nations can obliterate each other and I?ll sit around having a picnic.[/color]

[color=indigo]I worked retail when I was younger (at a store that so many people seem to sneer at) and I pulled the mistletoe trick, although I was lacking a hat. I just pulled a few sprigs off of a wreath a walked around work holding it over girls? heads. It was pretty un-biased and harmless though? I don?t think I would try it on someone I didn?t know, though, getting smacked isn?t all that pleasant?[/color]

[color=indigo] This whole thread is just odd. There is no set of rules when it comes to meeting women, or vice versa. Now I am not going to negate what Sauce-head has said so far, because the world as a whole would like you better if you took a bath now and again (cough ?Lex cough), however, I think he overlooks what most people overlook. Some people can just play. Take me for example (yes I am going to talk about me, after all, is anything more interesting?), when it comes to talking and meeting girls I have always been able to ?play?. I never had a problem chit chatting with them or giving them my phone number or getting them to go out with me. Some of my friends, some better looking than me (okay, not really, I am me after all and I am gorgeous :p) aren?t very good at talking to girls. They just can?t seem to get that initial flow going. That isn?t to say that they don?t have more successful relationships then I do, many of them do (or had), they just have a hard time with the initial ?leg work?. To be honest meeting women (or meeting men) could be easily compared to playing video games. Some people are just naturally good at playing video games in general. Some people need a bit more practice. Regardless of how good you are at the game initially you get better with practice. Sure, you might make a few wrong moves or loose a couple men along the way but you get better from experience. The same is true with meeting people of the opposite sex. [/color]

[color=indigo]I always find it odd when people are adamant that America is a Republic and not a Democracy, when, in fact it is both and really not truly either. Obviously in a true Democracy the people dictate their own laws by popular vote, we all know that this means that people (as a collective) would have to vote on every single law that is brought up. In a true Republic, however, officials that are not monarchs act as the legislative and judicial body for the people. A republic is quite a bit closer to the United States form of government but still doesn?t really fit due to our precarious balance of National, State, and Local government. At the Local and State level true democracy is often times realized (i.e. school bonds, local expenditure bills, zoning laws). Therefore I would probably say that America is neither a Republic nor a Democracy but a conglomerate of both. As for the initial question, like Drix stated, you could have both, although I have no idea why anyone would want to live in a communist society. Just because you excel at something doesn?t mean you desire to do it your entire life. Obviously desire would be a problematic factor in any true communist society, and life without desire would be quite boring. At the same time, I wouldn?t want to live in a true Democracy that consisted of more than a thousand or so people because voting would end up becoming tedious, boring, and time consuming. [/color]

[QUOTE=Heero Darkangel]Ok I've been thinking about this for sometime now...I don't know if anyones done a thread like this before..but I'll try it Ok a while ago ( i can't remember when it happened so i can't give any time lines) I was watching the news on t.v...i was really bugged about one of the news reports...you see there was a lady ( i think she was a sercurity guard..I can't remember too well)...who was attacked and beaten by two or three men...she defended herself by pulling out her gun and she shot one of them in the leg...and she was had up for attempted murder....while her attackers got let off with a warning (I think) [/quote] [color=indigo]At first glance the story about the woman seems ridiculous. I mean, she was getting beaten and accosted by multiple men, she should have the right to defend herself. However, there [b]could[/b] be extenuating circumstances that you don?t know about. Let us do a hypothetical. The three men are actually teenagers between 17 and 18 that were suspected to be shoplifting at a mall that the female security guard works at. The female security guard tries to stop the suspected thieves and they bolt. One of them pushes her down while he runs by. Out of frustration the security guard takes a shot at the guy and hits him in the leg. Obviously most rational people would consider this an excessive use of force. I don?t know if this is what happened, but I do know that there tend to be two sides to every story, regardless of what the media prints or says. In our society you can be accused of a crime and an investigation will ensue. If that investigation leads to plausible evidence (which must have been the case in this incident) you can be charged with a crime, and if you are judged guilty by a jury of your peers you will be convicted. If you are falsely accused of a crime with malicious intent then you have both civil and criminal repercussions that you may take.[/color] [QUOTE=Heero Darkangel]What i'm trying to get at is....what else are you ment to do when your own life hangs on a thread of existence and extinction....there's no way in hell you can make a call to the police when your getting your arse kicked!..... So I'd like to know what your opinion is on this and what you'd do in a situation like that...would you stand there and get you arse kicked or even get murdered or would you stand up for it all? [/QUOTE] [color=indigo]I would never be in a similar situation because I would never carry a handgun. If someone attempted to mug me and I felt threatened I would give them my money (rarely do I carry much cash and credit cards can be replaced). If I didn?t feel threatened I would retaliate, although I am not going to act like ?Johnny Tough Guy? and say that I would kick their ***. I?d probably just try and fight them off enough to get away. Some things aren?t worth crossing that line where anger just becomes all consuming. I got into some fights when I was younger and that happened and I still regret those instances. [/color]

[color=indigo]I had a bowl cut once?it was horrid. Usually I have no complaints with my hair. It is dark brown, thick, slightly curly, and very soft. I have worn it long, medium, and shaved, although lately I have taken to wearing it a business length but kind of bed-headish. [/color]

[COLOR=INDIGO]If you are a U2 fan looking to buy an iPod then it is a pretty worthwhile $50. I believe you get an additional 400 something U2 tracks when you buy it.[/color]