Anime Elf

We still need a militia. Have you ever heard of the generational theory on war? Basically, it states that every generation has a war, and depending on the deathcount, who won, and what was gotten approximately determines when the next war will happen in a 15-30 year span. Given that this theory has proven true for the most part (just look at a timeline of all the wars in American history with the three factors), we will always need a militia. Since the military consists of private citizens who volunteer (for the most part), why not have them prepared before they even start basic training? The homicide rate doesn't just hinge on guns. If you sat and thought about it, then you would come to this conclusion. Hate crimes, regular crimes, resisting arrest, and many other things make up the homicide rate, not some angry person who carries a gun 24/7 who gets ticked about any little thing. The reason I'm using knives compared to guns is that the knives would replace the guns for those who can't get a gun. But considering who murders - criminals - I find it highly unlikely that outlawing guns will do much to disuade these people. And while Japan and the UK are such perfect example apparently, there must not be any countries where this has backfired. Well, let's not look at countries like say Australia or Switzerland or Israel. In Israel, almost everyone has a gun (no surprise there), and most of their crimes are bombings and Palestinian acts, not Israelis gunning each other down. Switzerland has more guns per capita than the US does, and their crime rate is pretty darn low. Unlike the gun-free utopias of Australia or GB. Countries that have outlawed handguns and whose gun crime rates have risen over the past 5 years. Like in Australia, in some parts of the country, violent crime went up 100%, and that's when the guns were "gone". GB's crime rate is up to 10.9 and did you hear of the madmen running into church and killing their victims with swords (which could be seen as really big knives if you want). And don't even get me started on the disarmed South Africa, whose own government is controlling the population by brute force. But apparently Japan is good enough to cover everyone. Because it "worked" once, it apparently works everytime (if you overlook the times when it doesn't). The colonists stole a lot of the weaponry they had, not to mention using guerilla tactics and having French allies. Not everyone owned a gun, and guns at home can only do so much so long. And as long as law enforcement is being used, while they might be less likely to kill, isn't everyone human? Not too long ago, where I lived the head of county law enforcement was arrested and imprisoned, for public intoxication and stupid (but not dangerous) acts he performed under the influence. Remember a man named Clinton and his little scandal? Even those in power screw up, despite how much more responsible and less prone to whatever they seem to be. Why do we need guns? Why do we need a car? Why do we need a steady job? We like security and convienience. If yours or someone you knew very well's house ever got broken into, I'm sure that you might think guns are for a little more than going to the shooting range or hunting or killing your girlfriend's secret fling. Maybe the amount of thieves detered and/or stopped by a homeowner's gun is enough to be seen as beneficial and a good reason for owning a gun. As for if the federal government took away the second amendment rights, I ask you to look at South Africa and other countries in which it is estimated that 100 million were killed due to acts of genocide performed by a government they trusted who disarmed them first. If you look at concealed weapon stated with the most lax laws, you will see they have the "best behaved gun owners". Look at Florida, or Montana or Utah or Texas. But then again, this is just reinforcing a previously made point. Also, while the logic about the 98/2 seems like it might work in a perfect world, lets take a look at crack. Illegal. Most of the people in America follow that rule, but some don't. When the police find it, it gets taken away. Unfortunately, crack, like guns, isn't some finite resource we can lock in a vault and destroy the key. More comes into the country and probably always will. I've already said this, but people will always kill people, with or without the second amendment, as my previous evidence proves. While killing someone when drunk might not be like killing someone with a gun, an estimated 80 or so people a day are killed because of drunk drivers (themselves or others). While that might not be homicide in everycase, you seem to think that every little bit counts. So we can punish the people who drink responsibly while the "criminals" will brew their own beer and get drunk and kill people. Under the freedom of speech, voilence might be incited, not to mention "verbal abuse" that could lead to someone going on some killing spree (depressed high school kids who get picked on killing people is a good example that has happened on numerous occasions), and if their mind is set on that, having a gun won't matter that much. Freedom of Speech isn't what got blacks "equality" (seeing the racism today, it was only in a legal sense), it was a changing mindset in the majority of the right people who could pass the law, even though the equality was supposed to start happening once the slaves were freed, but the country was to fragile to stop people from taking advatage of the blacks (ex. poll taxes and grandfather clause). Yeah I know that non-Christians would be tolerated to an even less degree, but the point is, the founding fathers shared a religion (or at least many of the core concepts) and since practically everyone was the same religion, why not just throw that in there? I was saying that the First Amendment was "outdated" so to speak compared when the Constitution was first made, and those members of the elite stood to profit from its passing and they had a larger degree of control over those rights than today. So in that sense, it's "outdated", but then again, I still enjoy it, kind of like how I don't really mind that second amendment so much. How were my car comparisons faulty? No one in their right mind would think that a car is not capable of killing someone. There's even a name for killing someone with a car, vehicular homicide or manslaughter (case pending). People with the nice, fast cars are more likely to drive them fast. But then again, a lot are rich and many times the case doesn't even make it to court. And about class imbalance, I was making a reference to Marxism, which basically says that as long as there's imbalance (classes), there will be conflict. And conflict kills. Not that I really need to explain that one, of course. The right to freedom of speech gets abused, much like the right to own a gun can be abused. Do most people abuse it? No. But since there is a minority of people abusing the right, apparently the reasoning is to take one of those rights away. The greater good. I'm betting that you oppose Iraq, even though it's supposed to be "for the greater good of the Iraqi people to provide them with democracy" and the oil is just a fringe benefit. To bad with the responsible people getting their right taken away, the irresponsible will keep on being irresponsible. The criminals will keep committing the crimes while the innocent are punished. That's some great logic there. Obviously, you won't ever see normal people owning guns as a good thing because of potential evil or I a bad thing because most people are responsible.

Crap. I forgot the word not. See the edit. Anyway, since the movie castaway was only a movie, I'm not sure where that gets me, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say there's paperwork involved.

what happens to your life insurance policy? Seeing as this has not happened to me, I have no idea what would happen. Would your beneficiary get the money? Would nothing happen at all, even though you technically died? Would your premium go up (assuming you could get another policy or something)? Do you have to put death on the part of applications where it asks if you have ever been hopitalized for anything serious? Edit: whoops, that one word changes everything

The law is hardly outdated. The 3/5 compromise was just something to have the Constitution ratified, back when slaves weren't considered people , but property. And the Convention didn't even want democracy for fear of the uneducated, non-elite majority taking control, much less give women the right to vote. America was already in a fragile state when the Consitution was being drafted, and the members were trying to get along, even though not everyone in the convention signed it. But back on track, yeah shootings are easy, but back before guns were so widespread, people carried knives with them, so mess with the wrong person and they'll kill you with a knife. More messy, a little more complicated, but still a relatively simplistic way to kill, and it was very common, and would probably gain prominence once again if guns were outlawed for citizens. I know that people kill each other for rather pointless reasons. Stabbing still kills. About the American Revolution, it was hardly just about quatering soldiers, right to bear arms, or tea taxes. The American Revolution was a culmination of a series of events happening in American and Britian. Whether or not the colonists right to arms was infringed or not would have had little to no effect on whether the Revolution would have happened or not. Also, it is still citizens who make up our military. I personally know of people who were and are in the armed forces, and most of them own at least one weapon that they keep at home for emergencies and what not. Even though they might not be part of the military anymore, they still have a weapon, is that wrong then? Bearing arms doesn't mean you'll go kill a person. Most people have it tucked away in a drawer or safe or something. The view here seems to be that if you have a gun you [U][B]will[/B][/U] go out and kill somebody. That's hardly the case. A slim minority of gun owners actually shoot someone else, much less kill them. As for the UK, yes they might have similar philosophies and a similar lifestyle, but if you look at the (stereo)typical American compared with anyone else, chances are the American will be more independent and self driven, self-focus and motivated, and not really wanting to take anything from anybody." The American mentality is truely unique, and taking away the right to bear arms is not something most Americans will like. And taking away the right doesn't mean it won't be done. 98% of Americans have, are doing, or will use at least one illegal substance. Even though they are illegal, look at how many people break that law. And people don't always just get their highs from using drugs. People won't stop killing each other if we take away the Second Amendment. But since guns apparently hurt people, and we can carry them, let's just take that amendment away. Hmm, let's also take away that one about repealing prohibition, because drunk drivers kill and not to mention drunken brawls that may lead to some serious injury, or maybe even death. What about that first one? Some one might verbally abuse me or maybe someone else's religion doesn't agree with mine. Hey, freedom of religion is fine when practically all the founders are the same religion, right? To bad they're all dead and the times have changed. Oh, and the press lies. We should shut that down right now. It's okay when the press was controlled by the elite, but now it's controlled by numerous people, elite and not elite. That first one is a little outdated, it should go. Amendments are meant to adapt to the times, not to be changed by or completely removed just because we live in aren't the same has 215+ years ago. Why carry guns? Well, just exercising my right to. Why not drive a BMW or a Cadillac or a Mercedes if I can afford to? But then again, boo on that. It might cause class conflict. We should all ride the bus, because no one is better than another if they all ride the bus. As you can probably tell by now, I think that getting rid of the citizen's right to own and carry a gun is pretty ridiculous. Yeah, that right gets abused, but so do a lot of other rights, but we don't go around (seriously) saying to get rid of free speech or the press. Aside from the fact it wouldn't pass, it wouldn't stop the killings going on today. And while it could be argued that it would reduce homicide, there's no way to prove that beyond reasonable doubt. If you don't like guns, don't carry them. Don't try to remove them from the rest of the people who actually use them responsibly.

[QUOTE] I don't think people understand that the Constitution says that we have the right to bear arms to MAINTAIN A MILITIA. Not for personal on-the-street protection. Not for guarding your home for a robber. This is why I don't see any room for debate. If you disarm guns, yes, people will still have them, but after a few years, they'll disappear. Take Japan, for example. They're not allowed to have guns, and people don't obtain them through the black market -- they have a very low homicide rate (so I understand). What's the difference between us and them? I say that if we ban guns, the same thing will happen. Yeah, it'll take decades, but in the long-run, it's safer for everyone. [/QUOTE] Okay, it was the intent of the founding fathers to allow citizens to bear arms, and of course interpretation of the law is all that matters now. And remember, back then the militia was whoever volunteered. There was no draft, just normal people who would fight for their country. Now, keeping that in mind: [QUOTE]A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/QUOTE] Of course virtually any court will agree that we are allowed to bear arms, and that if murder was the intent of someone, having the right to bear arms wouldn't matter so much, a way would be found to murder the person. Now for the quotes from the dead of the time. [QUOTE] "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, June, 1776 [/QUOTE] [QUOTE] "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764 [/QUOTE] [QUOTE] "The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788 [/QUOTE] [QUOTE] "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788 [/QUOTE] Using Japan, while it might seem relevant and an indicator of what America could become, isn't. The main point is culture. The two cultures are different, the priority of self over the society. Maybe it is seen as safer to not own guns in Japan, so they are more willing to embrace that. Here in the US of A, there is a mentality more towards "Who cares about society? It's better for me to own a gun, so bring on the guns!" And, as I'm sure many of you will agree with, not everything in one culture is good for another. If we're upset about imposing our culture and beliefs on others, how much worse to have other's imposed onto us? Not to sound cliche, but people kill people, guns don't kill people. If I really wanted to kill someone, I could use a pen, a book, a knife, a plastic bag, martial arts, etc. A gun is just one of many things to use. Guns aren't just there to shoot people with. Lot's of people hunt and I'm sure that many people carry guns in their cars. I mean, if there's a gunrack on the back of your truck, I'm sure that a gun is nearby. It seems as if most people assume that if you have a gun, you'll kill someone. Look at how many people actually own a gun compared with how many people actually decide to murder someone with it. I'll guantee it's not a 1:1 ratio, that's for sure. It's a constitutional right to bear arms. The last time an amendment tried to take away a rather common "right" so to speak, another was passed to fix the error (prohibition --> reversing it).

Uh, I saw the ending of s-CRY-ed and I probably would have ended the season about two episodes earlier if that counts. Oh, and I would have made Paranoia Agent and .hack//sign more understandable and still followable if you miss an episode.

Unpredictable/Irregular Weather Mesquitos, Bees, Flies, Wasps, Gnats Ants, poisonous crawling things Cats, Dogs Alergies (now the above line makes more sense) Motion Sickness Alligators, Crocodiles, Sharks, Jellyfish That's about it. Not allergic (to all at least) or afraid of them or suffer from them, but the fact that they're there at all just bothers me.

Random, thanks for your imput, especially on the struggle "coming out" so to speak. And while I know that this isn't really something America has had, but some older civilizations glorified homosexuality, but I'm not sure if that was because they thought it was okay or women were so low, why not do another guy (I apologize for the crude layman language) What I was trying to say was "separate but equal", which is how they used to justify segregation. There were bathrooms, waterfountains, entrances, schools, etc. for "coloreds" and "whites". So while not in the same place, they supposedly got the same service (although we know they didn't). I'm saying that the government isn't putting up gays only and straights only resturants, schools, etc. Not really sure on how well it could be enforced, or if they would if they could, but I'm saying that's how it used to be for coloreds (mainly blacks) and whites. That's why I'm a little upset about this being called a Second Civil Rights, especially because the spin on it is making it seem like it's only about gay marriage and what comes with that, not a struggle for equality in education, the work place, and just overall. (Targeted to no one in particular) And not to say that gays should stay in the closet or anything, but it's a lot easier to tell if someone is black than they're gay, so it was tougher for blacks because anyone could tell you were black, but there are a lot of people who can't tell a gay person is gay, which does lessen the magnitude of this "Second Civil Rights" in comparison to the first. There's no sexual orientation bubble to fill in, and even if there was, you could lie no one would be the wiser. It's a bit different if the reason for discrimination is as obvious as the nose on their face (a bit cliche, but it's true). Retribution, I would also like to thank you for your imput. First, about not belittling the treatment of homosexuals, I'm not trying to, but instead I'm trying to say that if we can't stop discriminating against someone based on how they look different than us (even if they do exactally what we do), how are we to stop discriminating against someone actually acting different than us? Not to belittle, but for the most part, people see it as "more okay" to discriminate based on actions (whether a lifestyle, choices about school, work, friends, language, religion, etc.) than based on outer appearance alone. Discriminating against someone because of how they look should be an easier fix, because it's just their skin (for the most part) that's different. It's harder to accept someone who acts differently than you. I'm saying we should focus on the smaller problem first, logically it makes sense, at least to me. Next on discrimination, I don't believe that unfair, unearned discrimination is right. I'm just saying that no matter what anyone does, it will exist. About the voting thing, a lot of people who come into vote don't know what they're voting for on every issue. They might just straight ticket or abstain (I think you can do that). If I'm outside of a voting place (like a grocery store or school), I would be a bit put off if a fanatic started getting in my face about what they wanted and seeing how that experience would be on my mind if I went into vote, it could sway my decision. And while I'm not saying I hate them, it certainly caught me off guard to say the least (especially if you're wishing homosexuality onto someone like it's a bad thing even though you're supposedly supporting it). As for the Church, while I know that not every gay couple will be rushing to the churchs to have their marriage acknowledged before God, there will be gay couples that will want to be married in churches (if just to spite religious people). Would the State come and tell the Church that it's not allowed to deny people and thus tell the Church how to do what they do? While I know that the "legislation" thing doesn't seem like a big issue now, it will be, at least legally. I'm not saying that there will be mass riots like the Rodney Kind verdict or anything, but it will be more of an extremely tedious legal battle. Politics has changed a lot since the sixties, and even in ten years. Look at how Alito and Roberts have to go through all this procedure and all these speechs and interviews with are not only taxing on them, but also their families. While this might seem like a good idea, ten years ago the Senate would just look at a nominee like Ruth Ginsburg, and while they might not agree with what she believed, they thought that she would be a good and impartial judge and she was qualified, so she passed with a 96 - 3 vote. Now, it's becoming partisal despite qualifications, there's specualation of a filbuster which would require 60 votes, which probably wouldn't pass given our party dynamics in the senate. People are more willing and able to challenge legislation and court decisions. That's why it's a little different than the 1960s. My sillyness about redefining marriage was to emphasize that if gay marriage is legalized, then other groups will want their marriage as well. Polygamy was an issue earlier in history, and I'm sure that someone will bring it up if gay marriage is legalized. In fact, it's because of polygamy that marriage started to become defined as one man and one woman, in the legal sense (it was just kind of understood before), with Utah actually passing a law making it so (I'm pretty sure about this but correct me if I'm wrong). The car and toaster thing are to say that some people might want to do this and might go to court about this. While it most likely will get thrown out, ridiculousness when it comes to marriage will probably erupt (or at least if you see things like polygamy and incest as ridiculous), the most proable reasoning being that if a gay couple can be married, why not a straight incestuous (they could be forced not to have kids or they could adopt)relationship or why not polygamy? In America, we have people suing because they spilled their own coffee on themselves or because they tried to sneak into a club and they broke their tooth or because their dad bumped into them with a lawn mower (granted it was thrown out, but the fact that it got up that far is crazy). We have people insuring body parts and inanimate objects and not every beneficiary is a spouse. Not everyone will see this as "gays can get married, case closed." About the derogatory stuff, I deal. I don't while everyone says "want some KFC/orange soda/greens/cornbread/etc." We have to learn to deal with people expressing themselves verbally (as long as they don't go too far as to go beyond the protection of the First Amendment). We can't go and beat someone for calling me a ****** or calling a gay person a *** (well, not legally anyway). We have to learn to deal. That doesn't mean it's right, but we also shouldn't violate someone's freedom of speech because they said something mean. Once they get physical, then that's different, but as long as the abuse is verbal, just leave the area (not the city or anything, but the room, the wherever) and just ignore someone who cannot address you without berating you and know that they are lacking in that ability. Just think about how that person is if they can only insult you and be glad you are better off.

School is great. Seeing all the awesome people, leaving and going to parties, leaving and going on vacation, leaving and uh, leaving for the weekend. School makes me appreciate breaks. Oh, except there's that learning thing. Those teachers keep talking when I'm trying to hold a conversation and get mad about it, so that's a bummer. And that homework crap. And tests. And AP tests. SATs. ACT. Crap, school sucks. If it weren't for the people, school would probably be unbearable.

My oppostion the gay movement right now primarily focuses around how it's being hyped and dramatized into the next Civil Rights Movement, which I find to be offensive. There aren't "gays only" places in town, no one can refuse you service, gays never had to struggle to get the right to vote, no gay only/straight only schools, no segregation, no "separate but equal". Discrimination, yes. And to top it of, the gay movement right now is focusing around gay marriage. That's not quite what you want to be associated with "The Next Civil Rights Movement". It makes it seem kind of petty and I feel that it minmizes the real Civil Rights Movement and the real suffering that my family has felt (yup, I can be traced all the way back to slave ships, aren't I lucky) and other African Americans went through to get equality. To say this is of Civil Rights magnitude is a bit much. I think that we as Americans should worry morry about discriminating on people based on how they look first and how they act second. There will always be discrimination. People are still racist, people still don't like women in politics, people don't like the poor, people don't like stupid people voting, etc. There will always be people with a certain mindset, and there is no feasible way that everyone will accept everyone else. Plain and simple. You can make everyone the same (looks, financially, mentally, athletically, etc.) and people will still find ways to be better than the rest, and inevitably put people down in the process. That's the nature of us humans. Most of the gay people I know are really annoying about gay marriage. I'm not saying everyone is, but especially during the vote to make gay marriage (il)legal, there were people asking me to vote, and they would get mad if I said I wouldn't. I would tell them I was underage (which is true), but half of the time they wouldn't believe me and started ranting about how that makes me a homophobe (notice the word phobia, that's a ridiculous and loaded term in itself) and how I'm trying to "keep them down" and "I hope you have a gay kid" or "I hope you become gay" and all this ridiculous stuff that kind of surprised me. For people preaching tolerance and equality, they sure were quick to attack someone who hadn't done anything to them. And while I will again reiterate that I know this isn't how all gay people are, not every gay person came up to me to ask me to vote, so I know I got the fanatics. I have a quick question about the Church. If gay marriage is legalized, what if a church won't perform a ceremony because they don't believe in gay marriage? Will the State have to interfere and tell the Church what they can and cannot do or preach? Will the couple have to find another church? Will there be any conflict between Church and State or will nothing happen at all (the latter seems highly unlikely). Oh, and even if some legislation does get passed, whichever side "loses" will just go to the courts and try to get the law overturned and they'll try to go to the Supreme Court or try to use their interest group funded politicians to do something about it. Which is worse, trying to get gay marriage legalized/outlawed or what happens afterwards? How far would redefining marriage go anyway? Could I have four wives? Could I marry my sister or brother? I love them. Or my cousins. I love them too. Or how about them all? Could I join along in some currently existing marriage, I mean, as long as I love both people involved? How about my car. I love my car. While I know you guys are like, you're crazy, this is America we're talking about and crazy things will happen. And if the law is written so that marriage is only between two men, two women, or and man and a woman, some people will complain. "Why not more than one?" or "Why not my toaster (first thing that came to mind)?" Gay marriage goes far beyond a same sex couple who loves each other and wants to spend the rest of their lives with each other. I wish it was that easy, but it's not. Oh, and homosexual terms as demeaning words. This is gonna sound mean and some people won't want to hear it, but get thicker skin. Like I said before, there's always going to be discrimination, and we need to learn to deal. Not everyone will like you. People will hate you. Not even because you're gay. Maybe you have green eyes or brown hair or you're rich or you're popular or something. They might call you something mean. Learn to deal. The world isn't utopia, and we can't make it, no matter how hard we try. Just go away. Remove yourself from whoever's spewing out whatever you don't want to hear. If you can't, just don't listen. No one's forcing you to listen to people berate you. It's that simple. Get a little tougher and/or just go away. As for funny things and homosexuality, I've heard funny things like "Nature's birth control" and "A government conspiracy to remove their genes from society and eliminate all gay people" and "They aren't the "fittest" because they don't have the inherent nature to want to procreate/keep their genes in society" and crazy stupid stuff like that. Not exactally mature, but it's a lot more lighthearted than the rest of this thread. And remember, survival of the fittest is just the nice name for us backstabbing each other to get to the top at the cost of others (I'm sure someone can make sense of that, even if it is kind of random).

Whoa, yeah wikipedia. I try to get info from people instead of an online encyclopedia that anyone can update (if that makes sense to anyone). I'm weird like that. Anyway, so if citizen's arrests are just for felonies (for the most part), then I can understand why they aren't so common. Also, I don't think the article covered this, but if a private citizen was making the arrest while posing as an authority figure, how would that work out? Say it was for a misdemeanor (class b or something) and you pretend you're a cop and you arrest someone. While not a felony (and let's say that's what your state allows), they were still breaking the law, and you're arresting them for it. I'm sure you'd get in trouble for impersonating a cop, but would they let it go for arresting a criminal or would the criminal get let off because you aren't a cop?

I don't really understand how a citizen's arrest works, although I've tried to learn, that darn legal jargon gets me everytime. So, could someone explain it to me in layman's terms and I was also wondering if anyone has/knows anyone who has made one before.

I agree about the sexism thing. There's still a whole lot. Same with racism. If Condi ran, a lot of people wouldn't vote for her because she'a a woman and/or she's black. Sad but true. I'm not seeing someone besides a white male president for the next 20 to 30 years at least. It's really different and we don't like "really different" here in America, despite what the "majority of people" say.

As for what makes us human, in psychology, I believe that it's the cerebral cortex (the top 1/4 inch of the brain) that's what separates us from animals. The rest underneath is the more "animalistic stuff" and basic survival instincts. Also, our brains are pretty big when folded out, bigger than a monkey's (general term there), though I doubt brain size is the deciding factor. Oh, and some consider language to be a determinant as well, as humans are the only beings deemed to have language (not just a system of communication). Not to mention that whole "DNA" thing, but I'm sure we already knew that part.

My top qualities would be 1. Genius 2. Apathy 3. Not too much talking 4. Actually getting rid of the hero (no leaving while the hero "dies", Austin Powers and Bond come to mind) Aside from anime/manga, in comics (sort of the same meduim) Mr. Sinister and Dr. Doom are two of the best villians (I mean, just look at the names! oh, and the destruction). But the homunculi are some of the best villians. Always present, but not always on your mind. Their influence is so great for such a small group of rejects.

I'm looking for a book to read outside of school and the whole anime scene, more of a New York Times bestseller type of book. I heard that Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt was pretty good, but I would like to hear what (more) other people think of it before I go out and buy it. Would anyone recommend this or any other book for me to go out and read?

Have any of you guys played X-Men Legends II? The most annoying enemy was Mikhail because both times I played the game and had to play him twice because the first time through I killed him but it wouldn't let me move on. :mad: Oh, and those kids at the arcade games at Lazer Quest. You beat them when they come and play on your game, then they beat you and run off claiming to be undefeated. Unfortunately, society frowns upon one kid laying out another kid that everyone hates anyway.

Oh, that last post reminded me of something else pretty weird. Where I live, you can't get married, but you're not allowed to legally consent until you're seventeen. Oh, people say freedom of speech all the time, but get all up in arms if their offended, and in today's society maybe even sue if it's "bad enough" (exluding slander and libel). Speaking of lawsuits, criminals who win because someone fought back and they got hurt, people who sneak into clubs and chip teeth and successfully sue the club, obesity lawsuits, and the McDonalds coffee lady lawsuit. Oh, and a spouse who could get half or even more just because there wasn't a prenup, despite not doing equal work in relationships (i.e golddiggers).

As long as you watch the show and consider yourself and fan, then I don't really see why you should let anyone else tell you if you're a fan or not. It doesn't really matter if you can get your hands on subbed or not. What next? You need to speak fluent Japanese and watch the original episodes the day they come out?

I really like FullMetal Alchemist. I like how it has the whole modern yet antique-ish feel to it. The show also didn't create too many characters as to allow character development to occur (while there are some "pointless" characters, they are comic relief). Also, it doesn't have some rotating door of villians. In addition to all this, it kills off a main character, goes into religion and government corruption, and everything doesn't always turn out okay. It's a smart anime, unlike most of the stuff that's been pouring in lately, and that's why I like it.

Old People definately. You can't punish an old person. Hitting an old person is evil in itself, so what can you do to stop an old person? On top of that, there's the "old people" smell and the check pinching.... :animestun

This isn't gonna sound a little weird, but bear with me. I don't want my game graphics to look realistic (well, maybe war games and splinter cell), but I still want their quality to improve. I want to know that I'm playing a game and clearly be able to see it. That's one of the great things about games. You know they aren't real and the graphics help to emphasize that. It just kind of adds to the overall experience, at least for me.

What do you consider to be some absurdities in life? I'll give some examples so you guys will have at least some idea of what I'm talking about. -There are many schools that give out suspensions for skipping school -People like people who failed before succeeding although not failing should be more desirable -People wanting to see the successful fail, despite our society valuing hard work and determination to succeed

Isn't Microsoft also losing money for every X-Box 360 they sell? So if their "X-Boy" or whatever was released, wouldn't it more likely than not just lose them money (based on how things are going at the moment)?

Paranoia Agent Fooly Cooly That Hide and Seek thing that was on Adult Swim one time or something The last two episodes of s-CRY-ed [color=#ff6600]Please expand on your choices. A post that is nothing but a list is not enough to encourage discussion. -Lore[/color]