eleanor

[font="trebuchet ms"] Lunox's ghetto pirate costume, put together in ten minutes: -1 flamboyant scarf tied around head -1 pink ribbon for side-ways ponytail -1 paint-splatter-styled oversized button-up -1 green waist belt -1 bohemian hip tie -1 blue short-short -1 pair of red heels -1 foam pirate sword - too much mascara & eyeliner = best costume ever. Pictures? Possibly.[/font]

[FONT=trebuchet ms]What? No House thread...insane! (Actually, I tried searching the forum but my computer just kept giving me a white screen)[/FONT] [FONT=trebuchet ms]Anyways... I [I]loved[/I] today's episodes. It was so chock-full of hilarious moments. [spoiler]Wilson being the dominant one in the relationship and then House and Cuddy's test at the end were both the greatest scenes [I]ever[/I]. And Chase would head the bets, wouldn't he? [/spoiler][/FONT][spoiler] [FONT=trebuchet ms]I'm glad Foreman came back, because I liked all three ducklings. The new ones aren't as entertaining. :p[/FONT][/spoiler] [FONT=trebuchet ms]I like how this season is playing out. When [spoiler]Foreman, Cameron, and Chase all left, I thought the show would pan out some lame reunion episode where they all work together again, but I love the whole elimination thing House has started. Of course, #13 just reminds me of Cameron and #6/9 (I call him Kumar, lol) slightly of Chase, which is good and bad. So far I haven't really taken a liking to any of them, except maybe Kumar and Cutthroat *****. It'll be interesting to see who House picks in the end.[/spoiler][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana][COLOR=blue]Actually, there was already a House thread. Always check the [thread=56261]thread directory[/thread] first - you can save yourself a lot of time that way.[/COLOR][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana][COLOR=blue]- Petie[/COLOR][/FONT]

[quote name='Aceburner'][IMG]http://www.ramblestrip.com/sanjaya_scary.jpg[/IMG] How can you not love that face? (:luv: says the tonedeaf teenyboppers.)[/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Even as a teenbopper I don't see the attractiveness, lol. He's possibly the least attractive guy I've ever seen.[/font]

[quote name='Aceburner']Do I sense discontent with the greatness of Sanjaya Malakar?[/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] :rolleyes: Oh man, how did I forget [i]that[/i] kid...? [/font]

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink]Here's a better reason to disagree: it's boring. [/color][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] At least it's better than most anime. *shrug* The series [i]Ugly Betty[/i] jumps the shark all the time, but it works wonderfully. I love it so. :) But seriously, [i]American Idol[/i] outstayed its welcome after its third season. It amazes me that it shoots to the top of the viewers list every year, because [i]no one[/i] I know actually keeps up with it (seriously, which demographic is it?). The only likable singer this show has produced is Kelly Clarkson. [i]Nip/Tuck[/i] could be jumping the shark by its move to LA... I think the show lost its steam power in its second season.[/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] On Facebook I called a sophomore an idiot for using racial epithets, and he responded: "shut up asian girl" and "Hey how can you be in the high school network and the duke network at the same time? ur so stupid." I don't know how that was supposed to insult me, but I don't expect much from a guy whose profile picture of a starving African child labeled 'Barry Bonds'.[/font]

[quote name='Japan_86'][COLOR="DarkRed"]You need adequate shelter, a way to get food and water, and a place where you can get weapons. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Wal-Mart seems to be the best choice here. [/font]

[quote name='Aceburner'] Heck, that's Bush's excuse.[/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Yeah... the thing is, Japan did this about 50 years ago. Bush is now, and he won't exactly go down in history as the greatest president ever. [/font]

[quote name='Desbreko'][center][img]http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/9575/chiyosorryiq8.jpg[/img][/center] [color=#4B0082]James, stop making Chiyo cry. :nono:[/color][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Neither funny nor classy.[/font] [quote name='Aceburner']True, but there is still Nagasaki and Hiroshima to consider. My point is that human history is riddled with countries doing ridiculously stupid things to each other, maybe we should just ignore whatever happened in the past and work hard to make sure it doesn't happen again. (There's no good way to voice my thoughts on this. Tust me, it doen't sound nearly as heartless in my head.)[/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Yeah, but the thing is, those other countries have apologized. A lot of schools in Japan still act like the invasion of Korea and China were for 'their own good', and Japan was trying to 'liberate' them. Anime does not make up for rape and torture. Do you think the US influence on Japanese pop culture, which is a hell of a lot more than Japan on the US, makes up for the atomic bombs? BTW, it's not like the US is denying that fact that we atomic bombed Japan, so if you're going to counter-argue Japan's atrocities, don't pick something that is universally mourned already. [/font] [quote name='Aceburner']I'm gonna side with Des and say that their ingrainment in our popular culture makes apology a moot point. (Is anyone really gonna make 'em? How about Hiroshima?)[/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Yeah, I mean after watching cel-shaded schoolgirls titter around I don't even know why Japan should apologize for mass raping and murder. I don't even know why Germany apologized for the Holocaust, they gave us Oktoberfest!!![/font]

[quote name='Ezekiel'][SIZE="1"]I didn't draw chins.[/SIZE][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] GOOD GOD, MAN. ;) [/font]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']So honestly, there's no need to defend the right to hate something just because I don't understand it. [/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] But honestly, that's what forums are for. ;) [/font]

[quote name='James'][color=#606060] As I said though, there are many kinds of democracy. America?s is one kind, Iraq?s is another and Australia?s is yet another. They all have pros and cons, but ultimately I think most people would tell you that self-determination is better than autocratic rule.[/color][/quote] [font="trebuchet ms"] I do think that representative governments are ideal, but just to reinforce an idea you mention later on, it's important that governments must differ according to their circumstances. My fuel for my arguments stem mostly from the idea that so many countries want what some other country has for a government, but may not take into consideration what's best for them. And the idea that a lot of American citizens think their form of government is superior, lol.[/font] [quote name='James'][color=#606060]Yes you do need elements of a capitalistic economy, but democracy and capitalism are not mutually exclusive (quite the opposite really). Indonesia?s move to democracy, in and of itself, is not the source of its woes. Much of the problem in Indonesia is related to the fact that the country still clings to poor habits from the past (including rampant corruption). Indonesia also doesn?t have the necessary maturity in its economic regulations to provide the right environment for healthy business growth. These issues are not intrinsically tied to democracy though. In China, which is now adopting a ?capitalist socialist? type system, the government has instituted business reforms to provide capitalistic elements for business?yet the government is still fundamentally socialist. [/color][/quote] [font="trebuchet ms"] Capitalism and democracy aren't mutually exclusive, yes, but I think having a capitalistic economy contributes greatly to building a liberal democracy. You have wealthy, middle-class people who will want some say in government, but it's just one factor among many. I think it can be argued to an extent the capitalistic state of the major power cities in China will eventually, some time in the future, lead to some sort of political revolution. If a middle class is forming, that is. I really don't know much about China, though. I think the same can be applied to a lot of other countries, because it's just a universal theme in history. [/font] [quote name='James'][color=#606060]I?m not really sure what your point is though. Indonesia?s reforms were and are necessary for the country?s economy to develop. I think you?ll find that the relationship between reform and instability isn?t a direct causal relationship ? there are other factors involved. Also in the case of India, you have to make a distinction between ?democracy? and ?abuse of power?. The two are not inherently related. Democracy is like any political system; people can corrupt it. This is what Saddam Hussein did in Iraq. I don?t think this reflects badly on democracy, but rather, I think it reflects badly on those who abuse their power (no matter the circumstances).[/color][/quote] [font="trebuchet ms"] I agree with your point that corrupt democratic governments reflects badly on the abusers, but I think that what raises the chances of a radical abuser is the hasty implementation of democracy. I know it's sort of moot to argue that letting a country develop on its own will ensure safety, because the US went through turbulent times trying to institute its own government, but influencing and pushing other countries to adopt it isn't healthy.[/font] [quote name='James'][color=#606060] And again, you can?t make generalisations about this sort of thing. Iraq had many of these elements inherently in place before these transitions took place (in terms of economy and resources particularly). I think you?ll find that the question is much like asking how long is a piece of string ? it?s entirely dependent on the circumstances.[/color][/quote] [font="trebuchet ms"] I think it's the opposite, because Iraq had oil wealth went quickly into the hands of few, which blocked the way for good institution-building. Whereas in places like Japan, where resources were few, good institutions were made. Though bringing up Japan attacks my own point, because the influence the US used on Japan ended up being a relatively good thing. [/font] [quote name='James'][color=#606060]Well, you know, in Iraq it [i]is[/i] gradual. It?s being done carefully and with due consideration. I?m not sure what more we can expect; I would not want to place an arbitrary number of years on the outcome. I agree with your last sentence, but I don?t think that it really applies to Iraq in particular. It does apply to Indonesia though ? but again, it doesn?t negate the need to transition to democracy, it just means that the [i]process[/i] must be handled with care. [/color][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] I'll agree with you here, just mostly because sometimes things don't work out for some countries. Luck plays a part in all of this, too, so it's not entirely in the hands of the people trying to get it done.[/font] [quote name='The Blue Jihad']This current topic has become tiresome. Your new topic? Discuss the literal presidential race. If Rudy, Hilary, and Obama were to compete in the 100-meter sprint, who would win, and by how much?[/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] [strike]The black guy, duh.[/strike][/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I know how you feel. I looked at my old sketchbook the other day, which isn't really 'old', I had just filled it up all the way and moved onto a new one, and I ended up hating 95% of my drawings. The people looking at your drawings probably do think you're good at drawing, simply because most people who aren't great at drawing will think that. It's just that artists are always hardest on themselves, lol. I think "artistic angst" exists in every artist, no matter how good other people think they are.[/font]

[quote name='Aceburner']Relax. I kid. However, I will say there's just something I don't really like about her. She seems a bit overbearing at times. I'll definitely be rooting for Obama this time around (from what I've seen this year, Giulianni doesn't stand a chance. It looks like the Republicans don't have a chance even if Jesus announces that he's running. Also, don't regard this comment as anything. As far as I'm concerned, the party system needs to go bye-bye.)[/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Yeah, that post was pretty directive. :animeswea But it was general, my bad. You can't really beat my school on this, though, we had an entire conversation about whether Bush was uglier than Kerry. v_v[/font]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']And I still see no reason why it should make sense for someone to actually hate a show. There are lots of shows out there that I find distasteful and don't care for, in more than just anime. Though I've yet to see a whole lot of anime. I simply think it's a waste of my time to hate something like an anime show that isn't even real but just a make believe story. And while we are at it. By no means am I saying someone shouldn't hate a show, I'm only saying that to me, it makes no sense. But then I've yet to run into something I truly hate, but then like I said, I never stick around for the rest if I don't like it to begin with.[/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"]Sexism is a real thing, and if it exists in a make believe story, it still exists. Who ever said media doesn't effect viewers? It's not a matter of whether I finish the series. It's the fact that it has stupid ideals in it. I hate [i]Birth of a Nation[/i] because it promotes the KKK and the savagery of black people, and it's a make-believe movie. Did I ever finish it? No, thank God...lol If you hate the factors of something, you'll probably hate the sums of them. People can hate [i]Catcher in the Rye[/i] if they hate stream-of-consciousness writing, teenagers, sarcasm, and lack of plot. :p [/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Just as a warning, I'm pulling all of this from memory of articles I have read and are sitting somewhere in my locker at school. So I do have reliable sources, and I'm not just pulling this out of nowhere, I just happen to not have them with me. =_=[/font] [quote name='James'][color=#606060]The thing is though…who is expecting the ability to vote to suddenly create secure constitutional rights? I don’t think anyone suggested that really. [/color][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] I mean, George Bush. lol He might not have really thought that, but there was so much hype about Iraq's "first elections" and media implied that this voting automatically meant Iraq was a democracy now, just like the US. Which was crap, basically. People think it was good for America to go over and make Iraq democratic again, but it wasn't. [/font] [quote name='James'][color=#606060] So it’s not as though the Iraqi people voted for a new system and then had America [i]force[/i] another system onto them. Rather, America facilitated a [i]return[/i] to the system that had been created by the Iraqi people through their existing democracy. [/color][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Saddam's time in power created mass corruption and confliction internally, and just because it was a return doesn't mean everything will be dandy-fine. I'm not saying everyone believes this, or that you think this (clearly you don't) but trust me, there are people in the US who think just because Iraq is 'democratic' the US has done it a great favor. Were we even justified in going other there in the first place? How's reconstruction doing? And now that we're in this mess, what will people think when we just decide to pull out? [/font] [quote name='James'][color=#606060]And from that basis, Iraq has the opportunity to make decisions about the implementation of reforms including the incorporation of constitutional rights and so on. Under Saddam Hussein’s government, such ability to reform one’s own society did not exist. It’s also important to mention that Iraqi citizens are the architects of their new democracy. It wasn’t so much about America forcing democracy on Iraq…it was about American [i]removing[/i] a parasitical entity that had largely corrupted the democracy that already existed. I think that’s an important disctintion.[/color][/QUOTE] [quote name='James'][color=#606060]Indonesia is an example of how democracy can be difficult to implement. But there’s a problem with your comparison. Indonesia has never built democratic institutions, nor does it have the experience or knowledge to run these institutions with great effectiveness; there’s definitely a longterm development going on. Iraq is different because it has historically been a democracy, at least during much of the 20th century. Iraq didn’t need to learn everything from scratch; it already had educated officials who had experience in managing government responsibilities. It also had well-established federal court systems, which were quite capable of upholding newer constitutional reforms.[/color][/quote] [font="trebuchet ms"] I really just don't agree with you here. I know I sound stupid for saying this, but I'll have to come back later with research to back up my point, so I'll do that tomorrow. But I will say this- why democracy? There's such an obsession with the idea of democracy, that it will help pave the way for a great future, but who knows? Again, just because it worked out the US doesn't mean it's suitable for other countries. Can nations in the Middle East, that have the vast and disgustingly rich resource of oil in the hands of a few super wealthy families really form effective government institutions? Same with Indonesia. Reliant on its own natural resources, the country had weak political institutions and a low per capita income, and after its democratic reformation their gross domestic product decreased by fifty percent and 20 million people were pushed under the poverty line. Sometimes you need elements of a capitalistic economy, or at least a bourgeoisie to demands rights from governments. The IMF and the U.S. government demanded radical reforms in Indonesia during the late 90s, but they didn't realize the political instability those reforms would produce. Similarly, in India, the quick implementation of free elections gave birth to special interest parties such as the Bharatiya Janata Party, which used religious conflict and intolerance to gain power. [/font] [quote name='James'][color=#606060] But as I said earlier, there’s one bottom line to the entire discussion: at least now, the Iraqi people can make fundamental choices about how they want the country to operate. Even if you accept the argument that democracy was implemented too soon, what is the ultimate point of saying that? That it shouldn’t have happened at all? That it should have taken longer?[/color][/quote] [font="trebuchet ms"] YES. Yes, it should have taken longer. That's my point. Real liberal democracies are supposed to take time. There's supposed to be rights demanded by a middle class, a resource-poor nation, a capitalist economy, and other things. [i]Should[/i] it have happened at all? Who says democracy was the best course for a country like Iraq? The Westerners? Because it worked for us, surely it'll do great things for other nations... Building a truly liberal democracy is gradual, and I'm not saying if countries take it step-by-step it'll be hardship-free. I'm saying a quick jump to democracy just raises the chances for corruption, democratic autocracy, etc.[/font] [quote name='Aceburner']Her generous face time is what turns most of us off, methinks. [IMG]http://www.all4humor.com/images/files/Scary%20Hillary%20Clinton.jpg[/IMG] "I will eat your heart!"[/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] And in regards to this, I hate anyone who takes physical appearance into deciding who they should vote for. [/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Hate to be the wet rag, but I wonder why she didn't put it in her book. I know people will say that it's because being gay isn't supposed to be a big deal (but seriously, it would be in such a hugely popular series) and that it wasn't essential to the plot, but I thought it would have been nice for her to put in [i]Deathly Hallows[/i]. Not for my gratification, because either way I don't care, but it could have influenced a lot of the younger readers of Harry Potter. So my respect/love for JK Rowling stays the same. :] [/font]

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']I can understand not liking an anime, but actually going to the point of hating it? That just makes no sense really. XP There is plenty of stuff I don't care for but I certainly don't hate it. It's just a difference of preference really. Sure I might think it's stupid, but obviously it can't be that stupid or people wouldn't like it. Like Naruto. Those endless filler episodes turned me off, but it doesn't make the show stupid or give me reason to truly hate it. I would though if given a chance, simply trim out all the extra episodes since I did enjoy it at first. Oh and I'd only trim them out of my own collection, if others want to watch the fillers, who am I to deny them that? lol[/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] I don't see why that can't make sense. Something people hate aspects of an anime show, or rather anime in general, because of something it represents. I personally hate the moe subfandom, because it's basically a bunch of submissive and vulnerable girls who sit around being cute, or whatever. And I hate most female representations in anime, so I think that justifies me hating some anime shows. [/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I mean 'forced' democracy as in democracy is just instated into a country. Liberal democracy isn't something that can just be put into power, even if a country has one before. There's a process to building up any type of government. Sometimes it might work, but you can't expect voting to suddenly create secure constitutional rights or actually liberal democracy. I think it's important that a [i]direct[/i] predecent of pluralism or opposing parties needs to be present; while Iraq may have had a democratic government before Saddam doesn't matter, because it was [i]before[/i] Saddam's reign. You still can't really just jump into a new form of government, epsecially when it's being pushed by a 200-year-old democratic nation that thinks democracy is just the answer to everything. You wrote that the only problem with Indonesia was the lack of education and knowledge about how to operate democratic institutions, which just goes back to why implementing democracy too quickly is bad. Strong democratic institutions are created by the government when they have to make up for some lack in their country (i.e. resources). I have doubts on whether Indonesia wasn't influenced by the US to become democratic, but since I don't have any resources to back that up right now, I'll concede on that point. My main point is that this obsession with democracy isn't exactly good, because democracy is something a nation builds up to, not something that should be automatically implemented. [/font]

[quote name='James'][color=#606060] In terms of "enforcing democracy" I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you are referring to Iraq, I'd just point out that prior to Saddam Hussein's regime coming to power, Iraq actually had a democratic parliamentary system. As far as I know, the current model being used in Iraq is largely similar to the pre-Saddam system. My understanding was that Iraq used to have a unicameral parliament (in other words, a house of reps without a senate). The only real difference now is that they are trying to create an executive branch which contains members from each ethnic group in the country. I suppose you could say it's a form of affirmative action. [/color][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Even if the Iraqi government was democratic before Hussein, it doesn't discount the fact that a large part of Bush's insistence for the war in Iraq was to spread democracy to the world. Simply, there is a difference between liberal and illiberal democracy, and voting does not equal democracy. Forcing democracy onto other countries can (and have, in cases such as Indonesia, India, Venezuela, etc.) does not ensure that the people of those countries are allowed civil and constitutional rights.Elected governments that claim to represent people use democracy as a ruse for autocracies, and infringe upon the rights of other ?elements in society?, either by taking control of other governments branches or private/third-party businesses and groups. I don't my articles about democracy in Iraq with me, but just because the US has gone in and given the Iraq people the ability to vote doesn't mean they're a liberal democracy. [/font] [quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]What "rise in popularity" do you speak of? Has his support broken 5%? I more support Barack Obama. Yes, he is experienced, and yes he is young, but I don't see these as negatives. Meeting with rogue states? Excellent. It's not like the silent treatment actually solves anything in the real world... we need to get away from that Bush Doctrine. Taking nuclear weapons off the table? Great. Do I honestly need to say why? He opposed the Iraq War from the start, which shows to me a strong foresight and lucidity. Why should I want people who were on the war drum just a few years ago in the white house? [/font][/QUOTE] [font="trebuchet ms"] Paul surprised people with this 5 million in third quarter fund raising, which yeah, is tiny compared to other candidates' funds, but he's at least noticeable now. More people know about him, and his internet presence is booming. Of course internet popularity is never a good indicator of who will win, but at least he's getting noticed. He's the best Republican candidate so far; I don't care that he's not as popular as Giuliani or Thompson. People who vote based on who they think has the greatest chance aren't doing America a favor. If no one had that mindset, different people would win. And Obama, I don't really know much about, but he has been slipping lately. The focus is more on Hilary now, and whether she'll continue her lead.[/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I think the 2008 Election isn't really as exciting as 2004's, because Kerry vs. Bush was more high stakes and in between the incumbent's two terms, but this election is pretty important to me now that I've become more knowledgable about politics and government. I hate the part of America that thinks we should be in charge of enforcing 'democracy' around the world, when it's clearly something that can't be instilled into a country. It's such a huge issue with me, and with the "war on terrorism" (ugh) I will be hugely disappointed in a Republican candidate other then Ron Paul is chosen. The only candidate I really like already has minimal chances- he's running as Republican and he's not a forerunner, which is just disappointing.[/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"]I've just decided to make a thread about the presidential hopefuls, which could be combined with my other thread, but I'll leave that up to the mods to decide. It doesn't really perplex me, because usually young adults/teenagers don't actively participate in politics and don't affect polls or fund raising, but it's interesting that Hilary Clinton is the clear front-runner for the Democratic race for the party nomination while most everyone I've met just hates her, even self-labeled democrats. In the Stephen Colbert thread someone argued that her health care wasn't as good as Edwards and that she accepts money from lobbyists. Firstly, saying a politician is influenced by lobbyists is like saying the sky is blue. Well, duh. Special interest groups and lobbyists have influence on any presidential hopeful who is trying to raise money for a multi-million campaign. The health care plan I truly don't the details about, but I really think it's just become a trend to hate Hilary Clinton and blame her for mooching off her husband's legacy (because no one else would do this and she's just so weak at politics already :rolleyes:). I don't support Clinton, but the trend is irritating. But then again, Hilary's getting huge support over anyone else regardless of what teenagers think. It could end up like Howard Dean, but nothing is for sure. Obama is just dropping in polls, I guess because people focus on his inexperience (he's losing the black voters, which is just [i]bad[/i], lol). The other interesting aspect of this presidential nomination race if the scramble for the primary/caucus dates. New Hampshire and Iowa are getting their panties in a bunch, and there's a possibility that a primary or caucus as early as January could happen. Of course having such an early primary/caucus just raises the stakes higher and makes the race more focused on fund raising and ridiculously long. (Not to mention the domino effect it may have on other states.) Personally I think America's presidential campaigns are just way over the top. Some countries' campaigning times last for about two months, whereas ours is about a year and demands millions and millions of dollars. Clean election laws are never taken advantage of (because I guess they don't really have an advantage when compared to private donations) except in Congressional campaigns, and then again that's a small handful. Lastly, I'm loving Ron Paul's rise in popularity right now. [spoiler]VOTE FOR RON PAUL :-D[/spoiler] I've leaned a lot towards being a Libertarian lately, and since Paul is one, I've looked into what his stances are. I agree with his ideas, in general, and I think he's only running as a Republican because it was his best shot at getting the nomination. I'm pretty sure he was the only Republican candidate that fully supports immediate withdrawal from Iraq, which was just funny to watch at the Republican debate. He has the greatest internet popularity, I think, because people on the internet mostly happen to be Libertarian lol. He beats most other candidates in YouTube popularity and search term. [/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Well I never said I supported her, did I? lol I just want to know why so many people seem to think she's the devil. [/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] You never know, if Stewart and Colbert were somehow our leaders, they could do great things. Or really bad things. Who knows? They're certainly more intelligent than any of us, is all I can say. Also, I know this is off-topic, but why do so many teenagers and young adults hate Hilary Clinton? Whenever I ask people at school, they fail miserably to give me legit reasons.[/font]

[font="trebuchet ms"] [i]"I shall seek the office of the president of the United States," Colbert said Tuesday on his Comedy Central show as red, white and blue balloons fell around him. Colbert, 43, had recently satirized the coyness of would-be presidential candidates by refusing to disclose whether he would seek the country's highest office -- a refusal that often came without any prompting. Shortly before making the announcement, Colbert appeared on "The Daily Show" (the show that spawned Colbert's spin-off) and played cagey, claiming he was only ready to consider a White House bid. He entered the studio set pulled by a bicycle pedaled by Uncle Sam and quickly pulled out a bale of hay and a bottle of beer to show that he was "an Average Joe." Video Watch Colbert talk about himself on "Larry King Live" » Colbert said his final decision would be announced on a "more prestigious show," which turned out to be his own. "After nearly 15 minutes of soul-searching, I have heard the call," said Colbert. His recent best-seller, "I Am America (And So Can You!)," allowed him to mock the now-standard approach to a White House run, complete with a high-profile book tour. Don't Miss * Watch Colbert on Larry King's podcast Colbert said he planned to run in South Carolina, "and South Carolina alone." The state, one of the key early primaries, is also Colbert's native state. Earlier this week, South Carolina public television station ETV invited Colbert to announce his candidacy on its air. Exactly how far the mock conservative pundit planned to stretch his impression of a presidential candidate wasn't clear. Colbert rarely breaks character on camera, including at his memorable speech at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner last year. The Comedy Central host has often mobilized his fans ("Colbert Nation"), encouraging them to vote to have a Hungarian bridge named after him, for example, or to vandalize Web site Wikipedia.com with his version of "truthiness" and "wikiality." Colbert said he would run as both a Democrat and Republican. He earlier explained the strategy: "I can lose twice." He claimed three running mate possibilities: Colbert-Huckabee, Colbert-Putin or Colbert-Colbert. Minutes after announcing his presidential pursuit, Colbert welcomed CBS political analyst Jeff Greenfield to ask how he had changed the race. "This is going to be one for the books," said Greenfield. advertisement A spokesman for Colbert said he would be unavailable for further comment Tuesday evening. In a guest column for Maureen Dowd in Sunday's New York Times, Colbert wrote: "I am not ready to announce yet -- even though it's clear that the voters are desperate for a white, male, middle-aged, Jesus-trumpeting alternative."[/i] - CNN.com [/font]