Allamorph

[FONT="Arial"]My current: [CENTER][URL="http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z158/Allamorph/Wallpaper/ArkaidtheArbiter.jpg"][IMG]http://s195.photobucket.com/albums/z158/Allamorph/Wallpaper/th_ArkaidtheArbiter.jpg[/IMG][/URL][/CENTER] Created by [URL="http://wen-m.deviantart.com/"][COLOR="Gray"]Wen_M[/COLOR][/URL] on deviantArt; one of the few galleries worth browsing, I think. Anyway, saw it and just had to snag it.[/FONT]

[quote name='Gavin][SIZE="1"']... or in Allamorph's case, he really is Basement Cat, and that can't be helped.[/SIZE][/quote] [CENTER][IMG]http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z158/Allamorph/Misc/lolz/Damnskippy.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER] [FONT=Arial]Incidentally, it's no longer "CrimsonKnight". It's [COLOR="DarkRed"]Eclipsed Dreamer[/COLOR]. Moving onwardly.....[/FONT] [CENTER][SIZE="1"][B]TicalBlue[/B], aka [B]Rat Boy[/B][/SIZE] [IMG]http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z158/Allamorph/Misc/lolz/awesomereviews.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER] [FONT="Arial"]And I think I'll take a crack at that last challenge you dropped.[/FONT] [CENTER][SIZE="1"][B]The13thMan[/B][/SIZE] [IMG]http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z158/Allamorph/Misc/lolz/impliedcreation.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

[FONT=Arial]Needed a bit of simplicity this morning, so grabbed this one by Sarah Fimm:[/FONT] [CENTER][YOUTUBE="Mercury"]yWNJ5HFq3gc[/YOUTUBE][/CENTER]

[CENTER] [YOUTUBE="Epic Fail Is Epic"]bPWZ7ASnhiE[/YOUTUBE] [/CENTER]

[QUOTE=The13thMan][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Actually, my dear friend, you are the one extracting meaning from another's post that was not explicitly stated. I did not say you mentioned creationism. I am the one that mentioned creationism. So perhaps it is you that should get your "reading comprehension checked." =D Besides, i was trying to be dismissive.[/FONT][/QUOTE] [FONT=Arial]Fail. Let's breakdown: [QUOTE][I][FONT="Trebuchet MS"][I]Wow... this sucks. You've just opened up a whole can of worms. And here i am, without my fishing pole! Instead, let me be blunt. Evolution > creationism. There's a lot of evidence for evolution, therefore, you are wrong. ;D[/I][/FONT][/I][/QUOTE] What is she wrong about, if she never mentioned Creationism and you admit that she did not? The statement was simple: Evolution is a Theory, and unprovable. She did not say that Creationism was therefore right; obviously both are Theories, and both are unprovable. Your eagerness to launch a debate about [I]anything[/I] has undone you there; you have pulled in an issue that was not brought up. Remember, by your own words, any claim that cannot be substantiated is fantastical. Ergo, your claim on the probability of the existence of life on other planets is fantastical because it is either based on the unsupportable position that life evolved from matter or on the unsupportable position that God created another sentient species on another planet. End result: open, flagrant attempt to stir up unnecessary arguments. This is trolling. Cut it out. [QUOTE][FONT="Trebuchet MS"][I]To the first part, Holy Camole! I was trying so hard to be sarcastic and silly here... didn't you pick up on it? Or maybe you did pick up on it and are now replying in your own silly and sarcastic way, in which case i am the blind one. But, in my defense, if that were to be true i would have to say you're very bad at it.[/I][/FONT][/QUOTE] This is also trolling. Cut it out. [QUOTE][FONT="Trebuchet MS"][I]...Anyways, yes, obviously i have tripped before. The point i was (kind of) alluding to was that it's fruitless to say any one thing is more or less probable because we simply do not know in this case. You don't know when i'll trip again (if ever), and you also don't know how probable it is for life to exist other than here on Earth. So.... yeah.[/I][/FONT][/QUOTE] Fail. Breakdown: In statistics, we learn about this thing called "observational data". We can then use said data to estimate the probability of an event's occurrence?[B]within a certain degree of error[/B]. This type of estimation is used every day; you know this, so why are you forcing me to spell it out for you? Or maybe your decision to find no useful information in [COLOR="DarkRed"]Crimson Spider[/COLOR]'s post was also dismissive? (An erroneous decision, to be sure. No knowledge is worthless; you who crave debate should guzzle it up.) Probability can either be exact (die roll) or estimated (shopping tendencies). Estimated probability is quite obviously inaccurate, but is as accurate as we can make it with the data we have observed. Obviously you have tripped. Obviously we have seen no planets with life. Ergo, the attempted humor you presented was woefully ignorant?to which you [I]also[/I] admitted, as I shall show you. [QUOTE][I][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]If you consider the size of the universe and simple probability then it's pretty easy to see that the simple existence of aliens is very likely. [CENTER]//[/CENTER]When i used the word i was using its colloquial definition. I wasn't going for anything as formal as probability based on mathematics... which i admittedly know little about. [/FONT][/I][/QUOTE] There is no colloquial definition of probability. It is the simple ratio of success to total. If you know little about something, either don't argue with it or don't get hissy when people tell you you don't know what you're talking about. The only thing that such action will reap is more unnecessary argument. Need I repeat myself? Cut it out. [QUOTE][I][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]All i'm getting at here is it's easy to prove a postive but very difficult (if not impossible) to prove a negative. [/FONT][/I][/QUOTE] Fail. Breakdown: A reaction between two chemicals in a balanced solution will always use all chemicals. This statement's negative is very easy to prove; all you need is one trial where you have perfectly equitable amounts of both reactants and the actual yield does not match the theoretical yield. However, your line of thinking is almost correct: it is very easy to prove or disprove any hypothesis when either it or its opposing hypothesis are all-encompassing. E.g.: "there is no life on another planet" is, as you said, very easy to disprove once, because the hypothesis is that there is no life [I]at all[/I], and one instance of life will instantly prove the statement wrong. [QUOTE][I][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]i don't get the deal with the shift key, though... unless of course you're refering to the times i don't capitalize i. to which i respond... i don't care. =D get it? i'm still not using my shift key! sorry, sorry, i'm being a jerk now. feel free to call me on it.[/FONT][/I][/QUOTE] Consider yourself called. Also, yet more trolling. [QUOTE][I][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]I never meant for this discussion to be so serious. I was only looking for other people's speculations and opinions. Of course speculation and opinion isn't worth much and isn't conclusive in any way. I think that's perfectly fine, given the subject. Even so, i do enjoy and appreciate all the opinions, even the skeptical ones. [/FONT][/I][/QUOTE] And yet you continually dismiss the opinions of those who do not wish to speculate? Nicely done. You wanted people's opinions, and when they expressed the opinion that they'd like some more information (ostensibly so that they would not waste their time forming a completely erroneous, premature, and biased opinion), you called it a non-opinion. Appreciation, check. [QUOTE][I][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]But, seeing as this is a message board and not some sort of thought transfer device, people didn't quite get that. And this is of no fault of their own.[/FONT][/I][/QUOTE] In this, at least, you are correct. Half of the miscommunication is the emotionlessness of the internet, which no one can control. Half is your word choice. Example: [QUOTE][I][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]Once again, Rach, you have failed to fully understand everything i've said. [/FONT][/I][/QUOTE] The polite version of this statement: "No, Rach, that's not quite what I meant." Such wording does not directly imply that Rach is stupid, but makes the situation ambiguous; either he didn't read it right, or you didn't say it right; both of which are equally possible. So while a disclaimer in your sig is all well and good, I'd suggest you work on your word choice, so people don't get the erroneous impression that you're being condescending?if you truly are not. And for the record, all of the tone in this post is completely intended. Carry on.[/FONT]

[CENTER] [IMG]http://images2.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/20/128664388169803117.jpg[/IMG] [FONT="Arial"][COLOR="DarkRed"]Vicky[/COLOR]'s authority issues come to a head.[/FONT][/CENTER] [quote name='Boo][size=1']Is it just me or is this now just Caturday but then that people think of member names to put above the pictures? :whoops:[/size][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Weh-yalp,......[/FONT]

[FONT="Arial"] [CENTER][SIZE="5"][B]Twenty Eight[/B][/SIZE][/CENTER] [/FONT]

[quote name='chibi-master']Yeah, slash 'em up a bit![/quote] [FONT=Arial]I never want to hear you giving wardrobe advice again until you turn twenty-eight. [B][U]TWENTY[/U][/B] [B][U]EIGHT[/U][/B]. [I]Then[/I] you can tell someone how to dress up [strike]so you can ogle them[/strike] for Halloween.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]I haven't dressed up for Halloween for a long time?partly because I dislike generic outfits and partly because of some general stigma about All Hallow's Eve or something that I decided I-can't-remember-when-or-why. But I think I might this year. And if I do.... Grammar Nazi.[/FONT]

[CENTER][IMG]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/17/128661191271413035.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/16/128660486875348997.jpg[/IMG] [FONT=Arial]Seriously? No one's posted? Come on, guys![/FONT] [IMG]http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/16/128660828961313411.jpg[/IMG] [URL=http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/17/128661702268695531.jpg][COLOR=Blue][FONT=Arial]On second thought, I'll link this.[/FONT][/COLOR][/URL][/CENTER]

[quote name='Andrew][size=1']Just so happens that now it's a character you don't like doing it, get over it.[/size][/quote] [FONT=Arial]There are characters people like? But hey, long as y'all keep on readin' the stuff, I'm sure he don't mind too much. After all, he's still makin' money somehow. Plus, the target demographics seem to be the same to me as they were at the beginning. And they probably think the stuff is schwank; heck guys, you all know how bad Dragonball was, yeah? And yet you cling to it out of a sense of nostalgia, so meh. However, the chapter summaries make my day, so keep it up. :animesmil[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]At present, I am extremely curious where Brian is going with the Red Mage and the Violated Laws of Magic bit. All I can see coming is a possible un-polimorph back into the tentacle monster (the inclusion of which made me laugh quite hard), and Fighter possibly mistaking him for a creature again. Either that or White Mage shows up, makes things better, and proceeds to crush Black Mage with her pow hammer. Speaking of which, Black Mage the Inept can stew in his pink Victorian bedroom for all time, as far as I care. I am enjoying the addition of Dark Elf to the party, and he has rapidly climbed to my second favorite character position—Fighter obviously being my first, so supplanting White Mage as number two was a remarkable feat. Also, you think we're going to see any of Dragoon wandering around here soon? I kinda miss the guy.[/FONT]

[quote name='Mr. Maul][SIZE=1][COLOR=DimGray]It was written by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg when they were 15. The debilitating, yet non-self-inflicted brain disorder you referred to would be adolescence. [/COLOR'][/SIZE][/quote] [FONT=Arial]Ah. You know, that makes perfect sense. It at least explains half of the fail that went into production. Doesn't excuse it, but at least explains it. [QUOTE=Mr. Maul][SIZE=1][COLOR=DimGray]Now, I won't argue with your right to dislike the movie, but, don't even think about disrespecting Mr. Rogen, because when you disrespect Mr. Rogen, you are disrespecting Judd Apatow, and when you disrespect Judd Apatow, you are disrespecting the best television series about high school ever made... Freaks and Geeks.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/QUOTE] I fail to see how that is at all a problem for me. Remembered another one! [B]The Spiderwick Chronicles[/B]. This one is a bit on the iffy side, since it actually had the potential to be fairly decent, and usually if a movie has mildly convenient plot motivators and a few "ugh" moments I write it off as decent and never watch it again, since I'm a bit of a cynic. But when you have drama points held together with a single bit of information tossed in during the drama point—especially if said point would have functioned PERFECTLY WELL without said bit—then I tend to start groaning and finding something else to do. Case: the "hero" of the story knocking holes in the wall with a broom handle because he saw/heard something running through it. First of all, having just moved into the house, this is an incredibly stupid thing for [I]anyone[/I] to do, so I can see a bunch of stress on the mother's part (who we already knew was having difficulty convincing her kids that this was all good). But then we toss in this line: "I thought you were over hitting things when you were angry". The set-up from him whacking the car bumper outside was [I]not enough[/I] to justify beating holes in sheetrock with a broom handle as a 'fit of anger', and indicates an attempt at frustration of the hero (the Boy who cried Wolf deal) that was stretched too thin. Case: the eldest sister fences. Granted, there are people who do fence in their spare time, but this inclusion felt like a blatant effort to insert swords into a neo-fantasy setting that would have been [I]much better off[/I] without it. At least that way the three kids would have been forced to rely solely on their ingenuity. Besides, you can pull a better metaphor out of the main characters not being able to kill, and the evil minions trying to kill them anyway. The light/dark contrast isn't exclusive to the Christian sector, y'know. (Maybe I should start referring to the people in Hollywood as Jesus-phobes.) I could go on, but that would most likely end up going on and on and on and on until you all wanted to kill me. So.[/FONT]

Tactics Gerry Miles was surprised when Nathan asked for a booth instead of his bar stool. â??What, donâ??t feel like talking to me tonight?â? he had asked jokingly. Nathan had grinned. â??No, Iâ??m actually meeting someone tonight, a lady friend of mine, and sitting at the bar....â? â??...yeah,â? Gerry had nodded. â??Bad form.â? The booth Nathan chose was along the wall farthest from the bandstand, but away from the corner so the rest of the dive was still visible. Nathan didnâ??t want his guest feeling claustrophobic on her first visit. He expected she might feel a little odd about being asked to leave her fox behind, and he felt sitting in a dark corner might not do well for first impressions. He waited there until she arrived, shooing Eileen playfully away when she came for his order; the waitress had apparently been instructed by Tiffany to give Nathan a hard time, and learning he had a date only encouraged her. Gerry managed to hustle her away before Phaidra arrived, and settled down a great deal afterwards. Nathan didnâ??t touch the reason for the meeting until after the two had been served their food. â??Iâ??ve been thinking,â? he said, scooting a fry through his puddle of ketchup. â??Iâ??ve had an idea bouncing around for a few weeks now about a possible spell, and I wanted your take on it.â? â??Really,â? said Phaidra. â??What kind of spell?â? Nathan popped the entire fry into his mouth. â??Itâ??d be shield-magic at the core,â? he told her, â??but I want it to do some specific things for me when it gets hit.â? â??Like what?â? â??Well, Iâ??d want the circle itself to be the shield, so you could summon it right in front of you if necessary....â? Phaidra looked startled. â??Wait,â? she said. â??Just what kind of attacks will this shield be designed for?â? Nathan told her. â??What?â? she exclaimed. Nathan shushed her quickly. â??Itâ??s a training thing I want to use,â? he said. â??Kind of like target practice. In fact, Iâ??d also like it if the shield deactivated after getting hit.â? â??Oh. Okay,â? Phaidra mused. â??Well, I know Sarvel is very good with shields, but I donâ??t know if she can come up with what you want.â? She gave Nathan a steady look. â??Maybe if I studied how one of Sarvelâ??s shields reacts to . . . what you want it for, then I can study it and try to modify the design for you.â? â??You donâ??t mind doing that for me?â? â??No, not at all. I just wonder,â? she said, adjusting her glasses, â??what youâ??ll be using it for. I mean, thatâ??s a very strange thing to want to protect against.â? â??I thought youâ??d say that,â? Nathan replied. â??And youâ??ll find out eventually. But itâ??d be best to get the basics down first, and weâ??ll keep adding stuff as we go.â? He chuckled. â??Thatâ??s how we used to dream up stuff back in the war. Someone would get an idea during a battle, and someone else would tweak it just a hair, and before you know it we had aerial divisions and magic users who could . . . well, you probably already know about that.â? Phaidra smiled. â??So Eileen told me that you usually sit over there at the bar,â? she said, switching the topic. â??Did she?â? The mage nodded. â??She said you like the corner on the left.â? Phaidraâ??s brow knitted. â??Why? Itâ??s so dark there.â? Nathan shrugged. â??I blend in over there.â? He aimed his fork at her plate. â??Finish your salad; itâ??s good for you.â? Phaidra gave him a blank look. -------------------------------- Precious Time â??So you have more news from your familiar, you said?â? â??Please,â? Victor admonished, swirling his wine gently around in its glass. â??Donâ??t call him tsat. Even in jest. It iss very rude; and betsides, you know we canâ??t have tsem. It iss impossible.â? â??It is easier than â??shinigami informantâ??, you know.â? â??True.â? The vampire took a slow, careful sip and leaned back in his chair, crossing his legs. â??He hass been keeping track of tse progress on tseir project, which you know already.â? â??Yes. I remember you telling me what they were looking for.â? â??In general, or spetssifically?â? â??Both.â? â??Ah, of coursse.â? Victor sighed. â??Tsey found it.â? His companion leaned forward suddenly. â??Which one? If they get their hands on....â? The person trailed off at Victorâ??s upraised hand. â??Which one do you tsink?â? he asked. â??Believe me, no one undertstands tse implicastions of tse news more tsan I. It wass inevitable tsat tsey would discover tseir goal sintse tse first moment tsey tsought to look for it. Tsat alone wass worrissome enough, but I had tsintserely hoped tsat tsey would find tseir tsecond task too difficult. Tse atscentsion of Kellan to tse Countsil hass kept meâ??â??holding my breatssâ??, is it?â??for many years.â? â??And you know we havenâ??t been able to do anything to oppose it directly for just that long.â? â??Forgive me if I take little comfort in tsat knowledge, mon amie.â? Victor sipped again. â??Tsis is very good wine. I must tell Gaston he hass made an excellent decision.â? â??Your cookâ??s name is Gaston.â? â??You find tsat amusing?â? inquired the vampire. â??I was under the impression that Gaston was a very cliché name for a Frenchman.â? Victor sighed again. â??Tsat is unfortunate, espetsially for Gaston, who wass given hiss name at birtss. It iss a real name, after all.â? â??Of course. Iâ??m sorry.â? The companion cleared their throat. â??So now that the Council has found their quarry, what do we do? What can we do?â? â??To be honesst, I am untscertain,â? the vampire replied. â??All I can tsink of iss to try and putssh a little harder wherever we can. I woud ratsser not run hasstily into forcing ourtselves into tse open, but I am not tscertain how much more time we can have, or how much we can afford to tspend waiting and sstill be tsure of tsuccess.â? â??Yes. But it also requires even more precise maneuvering; if we push faster, we can afford no mistakes, no slips through gaps.â? Victor nodded. â??Agreed,â? he said. â??But for tsat we canâ??no, we musst count on our players to act ass in tse right ways.â? The companion leaned back. â??I think that wonâ??t be a problem....â?

[QUOTE=James][font=franklin gothic medium]But there are two things that really irk me. One, lobbyists. I know that I've defended lobbyists before, but what I'm really saying is that I think there's a difference between petitioners and professional lobbyists who are registered as such. I do think that Congress should have (if it doesn't already) a specific system to deal with the consideration of petitioners' issues. But I think that should replace the registered lobbyists, who have far too much influence in Congress.[/font][/QUOTE] [FONT=Arial]Put more specifically, "special interest groups" should ideally exist to give the minority a clear and audible voice, NOT to control policy. That's not democracy, that's oligarchy. I wouldn't see them disappear, either. But I'd like to see them bound a little more than they are. [QUOTE][I][FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]Secondly I think the other big issue is the way in which campaigns operate. We've seen how out of control they can get in terms of spending, for instance. So much emphasis is placed on fundraising and less and less is being spent on policy articulation.[/FONT][/I][/QUOTE] My first bone with the fundraising deal is that the Federal government offers to match a candidate's funds (up to a certain amount, I know) with tax dollars. I'm not really sure I agree with that clause; essentially, it means that we as a nation might be paying the campaign costs for someone we don't even want. The second is that so much money is spent on advertising a face, and eventually slinging mud, instead of getting word on policy ideas out. Personally, I want to know that the candidate understands what they can and cannot do as president, and makes no claims to do anything that is beyond his means [QUOTE][I][FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]Also, just as a footnote, I don't think that polarization of issues is what stops genuine political reform. I think the issue is just that changing any of these fundamental cogs in the political machine requires significant effort (possibly even consitutional change). And in any country, especially a democracy, consitutional change is generally the most difficult thing to achieve politically.[/font][/I][/QUOTE] Yeah, the root cause is definitely not issue polarization. In fact, I'm not sure there [I]is[/I] a single root cause, so much as it is a collective buildup of factors—some of which being media sensationalism, which is blatantly rampant no matter what station you watch; a general lack of understanding of how the system is supposed to work, most likely due to people having other concerns occupying their time; and politicians who are not in office to help the country run itself, but are there to run the country and make money. (That last one is not to generalize all politicians as such, merely to acknowledge that such people exist in significant numbers.) Also, I personally wonder that we allow ourselves to place so much weight on the office of president, when it is Congress who writes up most of the policy, and a great deal of the fine print added in. I suppose that's the inherent risk of assuming an exposed position, though; you are the top dog of one branch, therefore the mistakes of the other two are on your head.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]I'm resurrecting this thread to post a long thought set out by a friend of mine a few days ago; it holds with a good deal of the current election, I believe, and still further beyond. People of either "side" should take note of it, because my friend speaks not only to each side, but [I]for[/I] each side. Since my friend is a sincere Christian (as I try to be), his beliefs are driven by his convictions, and he does mention that near the end. If that offends you, I am sorry you feel that way, but I maintain that his statements are well worth the read.[/FONT] [QUOTE][SIZE="1"][align=justify]When it comes to politics, I usually try to stay informed, while staying out of political arguments. I feel that it is important to know what is going on in the world, and to have opinions about political issues, while still retaining an open mind and a willingness to respect the differing opinions of others. Tonight, though, I'm venturing out into the turbulent waters of the political Blogosphere... Two words that I have come to loathe are "liberal" and "conservative". Both words are thrown around so carelessly and slanderously that they have lost any semblance of real meaning. They are nothing more than mutually-exclusive labels that detract from the core truth of American Democracy: in order to be successful, we must allow for the free exchange of ideas between people with opposing views. As for me, I come down near the center of the political spectrum... which is also where I think a great majority of Americans would find themselves if they did an honest self-evaluation free of party affiliations. It really is a pity that politics are such a polarizing, divisive issue, because outside of those who live on the fringes of the far-left and far-right, most of us are not that far apart on the issues (Issues? Remember when politics was about issues rather than semantics and personalities?). Democrats tend to put more emphasis on social issues, because most "liberals" (for lack of a better word) have a genuine desire to help those in need. They want to give a helping hand to anyone who needs it. This is a noble desire, and civic-minded people who devote themselves to such causes should be applauded. Republicans tend to put more emphasis on issues of personal responsibility, because most "conservatives" have a genuine desire for every man and woman to better themselves through hard work and self-sacrifice. This is also noble, and those who have worked hard and achieved personal success should also be applauded. The problem lies when we let ourselves be drawn toward the fringes. Most political "isms" (socialism, capitalism, fundamentalism, etc) start out as great ideas, but when taken to extremes they breed corruption and ill-will. One reason that American Democracy is so great is that, when it works, Patriotic men and women with differing viewpoints engage in civil debate to reach a compromise that is in the best interest of the people. That is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they were drawing up the Constitution... unfortunately we're a long way from what they probably envisioned. Instead of working together, balancing each other out to reach basically "moderate" or "centrist" conclusions (where most Americans fall), liberals and conservatives both tend to fight against the other to prove themselves right, rather than compromise on issues where, partisan politics aside, they probably aren't too far apart. This pulls the country toward both extremes. This is our "culture war". Those on the far-left see the Government's duty as being to protect the unfortunate by "enforcing" civic service and charitable aims. They view those who disagree with them as greedy, uncaring, and cynical. Those on the far-right see the Government's duty as being to protect the hard-working by "enforcing" an environment conducive to capitalistic gains. They view those who disagree with them as frivolous, patronizing, and idealistic. Both sides have lost sight of the middle ground. Neither can recognize that both feel that they are protecting the innocent, nor understand why anyone would not want to do so. Our society brutally abuses the term "rights". Rather than agreeing that all Americans have a responsibility to respect and care for their neighbor, those on the right feel like they have a "right" to keep what they've earned, and those on the left feel like they have a "right" to have what they need. One thing Obama and McCain correctly have in common is the belief that the American political system is broken. Unfortunately, I feel like neither of them are going to be able to fix it continuing their current paths. Both are pandering to voters and polarizing the issues, which is how we got in this mess to begin with. The problem with politics is politicians. I feel fairly confident in saying that most Americans would love nothing more than to see "liberals" and "conservatives" come together to compromise on social and economic issues (and find out they aren't such different things). When socially-minded Democrats work with capitalistic-minded Republicans, the result ought to be a system of government that makes it possible for all Americans to find fulfilling work, get a good education, become financially stable for life, and give back to our society through civic service to make provisions for those who are truly unable to do these things (orphans, those with mental and physical disabilities, the elderly, etc). Philosophically, this should sound good to both conservatives and liberals, but it can only happen when those in elected office put aside their ego, quit trying to be right, and try to do what's right for the nation. Not an easy task, but theoretically, that is what the country's Chief Executive and its legislators are paid to do. As a final post-scripted note, I should clarify that when I use the word "compromise" I mean it as a purely political term. Naturally, I would never advocate compromising one's morals. However, morality is not a legislative issue. We live in a fallen world, and no one can expect everyone to share his or her moral views. As Christians, we are commanded to regard our neighbors, even our enemies, with grace and love. That commandment is apolitical. If we wonder why our society's moral fabric has decayed, ought we not to examine the way we conduct ourselves around those whom we would seek to influence, to see whether we meet the standard set forth in God's Word? (Romans is a great place to start) I'll leave you with this hypothetical example as food for thought: Is it possible to compromise politically on an issue such as abortion (why not open that can of worms) without compromising morals? For instance, there is a high likelihood that Barack Obama will be our next President. On moral grounds, most Christians are opposed to his stance on abortion. However, as Obama himself has said, "we may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of abortions in this country." Would it not be possible for Pro-Lifers to work within the bounds of the laws of the land (like them or not) together with Pro-Choicers toward a common goal of reducing the total number of abortions in America? Ask yourself this: While fewer abortions may not be as good as no abortions, is it better than the status quo, which is the result of both sides stubbornly refusing to cooperate?[/align][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[FONT=Arial][COLOR=DarkRed]3minds[/COLOR] (and others), please keep the Cinquain format in mind when you write, since the genre is [I]not[/I] freeform by any means. [QUOTE][CENTER][FONT="Tahoma"]Line 1 - noun Line 2 - describes noun Line 3 - states action Line 4 - [U]expresses a feeling[/U] Line 5 - [B]synonym[/B] of line 1[/FONT][/CENTER][/QUOTE] I don't like to be [I]that guy[/I], but I have a small distaste for avoiding a style when asked for that style. So stay on form, and we'll all be happy and [synonym of gay unrelated to queer]. :animesmil[/FONT]

[quote name='The13thMan][FONT="Trebuchet MS"']Your logic is flawed. [/FONT][/quote] [FONT=Arial]The statement "based on the lack of information, I feel that the forming of an opinion which is highly likely to be biased, fantastical, and false is a waste of time" is a legitimate opinion. In this case, it's also known as "we'll find out when they get here". Do not presume to speak of logic when there is none involved in your own reasoning, by your own admission.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Don't forget your aluminum hat. Or your digital converter box. 'Cause you'll need to watch [I]something[/I] while you're down there.[/FONT]

[QUOTE=Gavin][SIZE="1"]:animesmil No matter how hard I try, I actually just can't picture that at all. Given how wooden his performances tend to be, maybe he should play Dr. Gero, I'm sure Hollywood could age him appropriately.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] [FONT=Arial]Oh, I'm certain deep down in there somewhere is the capacity to act happy. Go-lucky is a whole 'nother ball game. Really, though, I just think it'd be hilarious to see Neo hit SSJ5.[/FONT]

[quote name='Whoa, Mann][COLOR="HotPink"][SIZE="1"]Touche'. But I do bet he'll play adult Gohan.[/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote] [FONT=Arial]KEANU REAVES!!!! IT HAS TO BE KEANU REAVES!!!! Also, Deep Roy should make an appearance as some character or other, just for amusement's sake. I mean, now that we've gone and made the Namekians all pale and what, couldn't hurt.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Borrowing [COLOR=DarkRed]Gavin[/COLOR]'s breakdown....[QUOTE=Gavin][SIZE="1"][B]What do you guys think about aliens? [/B] [B]Do you think we've been visitied? [/B] [B]Do you think they exist? [/B] [B]Would you like them to visit us if they do exist? [/B] [B]What sort of crazy alien technologies do you think their could be? [/B] [B]Would you be one of the crazy people protesting at the top of a NYC building like in Independence Day (waiting to get vaporized)? [/B] [B]Do aliens frighten you? [/B][/SIZE][/QUOTE] ....I wonder at the usefulness of debating a topic so heavily based on subjectivity and imagination. As it stands, we've got no indicators either way for extraterrestrials (since aliens are also technically Canadians, etc...), so if they do exist then I won't be too surprised, and if they don't then I won't be surprised either. A visit would be cool, conquest not so much (the Mayans probably felt the same about Cortéz); technology wouldn't be all that crazy, considering that, well, it's tech and makes logical sense one way or another; considering I have no idea what extraterrestrials would look or be like if they [I]did[/I] exist, being frightened makes no sense..... .....and weren't over half the people on the top of the buildings in Independence Day actually the Welcome Wagon? Or was that just me?[/FONT]

[QUOTE=Drizzt Do'urden]As far as the "forcing" thing goes, really it's like a REAL shotgun wedding. Farmer: No you don't have to marry my daughter, but it's either my daughter or the alternative. (He says as he loads up his shotgun)[/QUOTE] [FONT=Arial]I'm curious at that analogy, considering I only use the television when I am extremely bored, and at present don't even have one. Seems like most of that buckshot will miss me by miles. I'd liken the shift more to the outmoding of the horse-drawn carriage. Sure, you can still use it. But why?[/FONT]

[quote name='Sabrina'][font=Tahoma][b]EDIT:[/b] I think I just died from a cuteness attack. I can easily imagine Karl letting Astera curl up and fall asleep like that. XD I think I also died from an attack of wanting to...[/font][/quote] [font=calibri]"....be Astera." I meant to post today, but naps and Rock Band 2 happened today. So tomorrow morning I'll see what I can do.[/font]

[FONT=Arial]OH RIGHT. Any movie ever made by Sci-Fi. Seriously. Even the Farscape extended drama failed pretty well; despite being a clear cut above the norm, the act was just a complete copout for a good solid series with an appreciative fan base.[/FONT]