Boba Fett

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel'] It's not as if some holy war between Catholics and Jews would start up after this movie is released.[/quote] [color=green]Depends on if you listen to those random Rabbis that the news channels dig up. I honestly don?t see why people are so offended by the movie of a religious text that?s been around for hundreds of years. If minority groups have issues with this text, they should have taken issue with the Church long before now. In any case, it?s just a movie. I doubt anyone will see it and then go join some random anti-Semitic hate group. Much to do about nothing, if you ask me.[/color]

[color=green]Wow. I?ve never had aything like this happen to me Cloricus, and I wish you and your family all the best in what must be extremely trying times. Hopefully you can move on and literally rebuild. Best wishes, -Boba[/color]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']As for Bush, I don't care for him. I didn't vote for him in the first place and I think the budget deficit and the rise in unemployment is thanks to him.[/color][/quote] [color=green]Yes, our current budget deficit is due to president Bush. However, do you think that any other president could have fought the war on terror and maintained all of the social and economic programs our country enjoys [I]without[/I] expanding the debt? As for unemployment, that has nothing to do with the president. The government doesn?t have control of the economy. Government can influence the economy, as Bush has done by drastically cutting interest rates, but doesn?t have anything remotely like control. In his few years in office, president Bush has helped the economy recover from an economic slump that began [b]in the last months of the Clinton Administration[/b].[/color] [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet'] When Clinton left office back in 2000, we had a budget surplus and the economy was booming. Now there are more people than there are jobs.[/color][/quote] [color=green]When Clinton left office, we had a trillion dollar national debt. The economy had also taken a downward turn. As for there being more people than jobs, that is not the government?s fault. During this economic recession, businesses have made fewer people do more work in order to save money. I?d bet that by this time next year, the good economy will have given businesses money to hire people again to meet increased demand for their goods.[/color] [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']Another interesting POV. Many people want to rag on Clinton for being a draft dodger, and his unfortunate episode with Monica Lewinski. Neither of which should be considered in the man's political career, but Republicans can't seem to forget those things.[/color][/quote] [color=green]Clinton was a draft dodger? News to me? As for President Clinton committing adultery in the oval office, that?s terrible behavior for the president. Not only does that discredit America on the world stage, but also it questions the integrity of our commander in chief. What really upset me about Clinton was that he lied about it. He committed perjury; he lied under oath. He wasn?t honest. Clinton may have been a masterful politician, but he has no integrity.[/color] [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet] But what about Bush and the whole National guard thing? Yes, he did join, but his family's money got him a position as a Luetenant (paper pusher) in the National Guard-which BTW [b][i][u]NEVER DEPLOYS TO OVER SEAS AREAS![/u][/i][/b'] And even with that position there are questions to where he was the last 2 years of his enlistment. And I think we should all be aware that desertion during war time is punishable by court mashall.[/color][/quote] [color=green]When was the last time you watched the news? I think that you may have missed the White House releasing documents that proved President Bush served in the Texas and later Alabama National Guard. You claim he was a paper pusher. You lie Chibihorsewoman. President Bush was a fighter pilot. You also claim that his family?s money got him such a cushy position while others were sent to Vietnam. Are you accusing the Bush family of being corrupt? Not only is that slander, but there is no proof. Let?s stick to the facts.[/color] [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']In all fairness, Bush did do a good job during the 9/11 crisis. However, that's all the props I'll give him. Thanks to him, most countries really don't care for us anymore. He's hurting the ties we had with China and Cuba. Along with the state of the nation.[/color][/quote] [color=green]Hurt ties with China and Cuba? We have a great mutually beneficial trade agreement with China, and met with the Chinese to discuss North Korea. Cuba? Since the Cold war, the US hasn?t had a very good relationship with the oppressive, communist regime to our south. Frankly, nobody cares what Castro thinks anymore. Some countries [I]were[/I] put off by our war in Iraq, specifically European ones. We went into Iraq with twenty-six other countries. Now we know who our real friends are.[/color] [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']Okay, I'm ready for my disection Mr. Boba Fett[/color][/quote] [color=green]Any time Chibihorsewoman.[/color] [center]--- --- --- --- ---[/center] [quote name='cloricus']I stand corrected; though I'd still raise the question after what we have seen these groups do that this sort of way of dealing with relations and mutual enemies that it shouldn't be continued and a better way found?[/quote] [color=green]Absolutely. That?s why when we backed the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan; we kept circa seven thousand US troops there in addition to the UN peacekeepers in order to rebuild that country after the fall of the Taliban. This will be a slow process, but eventually we hope to get the country stable enough so that terrorists will no longer have safe haven there.[/color] [quote name='cloricus']And there are several very good reasons why he should still be in power, what is your point?[/quote] [color=green]My point is that Saddam was a brutal and evil dictator who committed terrible crimes upon his people. Whether you support the war in Iraq or not, I don?t see how you could see the freedom of the Iraqi as a bad thing.[/color] [quote name='cloricus']I wouldn't be so sure, we still do not know what Iraq's out come will be. For all you/we know tomorrow the rival factions could carry out their threats of civil war and wipe out a few million people in a few weeks; there are several things that Saddam did do for the country and one of them was keep it stable. So until every one is back in their own beds (and graves) and the country has a successful election where the new power is accepted and abided by only then will I say that the world is a better place without him.[/quote] [color=green]The US is instituting a scaled down version of the Marshall Plan for Iraq. Nobody?s sure what the future holds; ethnic, tribal and religious tensions will have to be skillfully diffused by any government that arises there. However, it can be done. The Iraqi people will see that the US has infinitely more to offer them than the terrorists, and a stable government will be formed.[/color] [quote name='cloricus']Which would have hurt some other part of the country and could have damaged trade relations with some where? I admit (and did up in my last post) that I didn't know the situation but really you aren't the person making the decision and I assume you wouldn't have had access to the reports and information they would have had and maybe a tax increase was the best way to achieve the goal. I just think that in the case of pointing out some thing some one did that voters normally don't like (eg tax increases/benefits being cut etc) is just cheap as it might have been the best option.[/quote] [color=green]You?re right. In some cases, tax increases are justified. I was just merely stating that there are other ways for a government to create more surplus dollars than continually raising taxes. The Democratic Party usually raises taxes to pay for their expanded social programs, while the Republicans tend to cut taxes to benefit businesses and stimulate the economy.[/color] [quote name='cloricus']Chibi any chance you could please make your text darker as it's kinda burning my eyes while I try and read it. :|[/quote] [color=green]For once Cloricus, we concur.[/color]

[color=green]Not sure how thick you wanted the border to be, so I just made it 1 pixel. If you want it bigger, that can be arranged. I'd ask that you don't host it off this attachment and steal my OtakuBoards Attachment Space, as it's limited.[/color]

[color=green]My favorite book characters are: 1) [b]Boba Fett from [u]Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back[/u].[/b] This guy is too cool for words. He is everything that my avatar says he is, and more. His cool demeanor and his formidable reputation made up for his few lines in the novel. Although the novel doesn?t do him the justice that the movies do, he still remains my favorite character. 2) [b]Bean from [u]Ender?s Shadow[/u].[/b] Bean is a child genius who survives a harsh life on the streets and rose to great fame first as the second in command to Earth?s ?savior? from an alien threat and then as the military advisor to Ender?s brother Peter. Very interesting guy indeed?[/color]

[color=green]Call me biased, but I?d recommend the [u]Thrawn Trilogy[/u] by Timothy Zhan. It?s a series of three Star Wars novels that take place after the events in [u]Return of the Jedi[/u]. Not only is this series considered to be the best written of all Star Wars novels, but there is a serious and powerful lobbying group within the Star Wars community to have these books made into Episodes VII-IX. If your not into Star Wars [strike]you?re a loser.[/strike], here are some other books that I?d recommend you read. - [u]Fahrenheit 451[/u] by Ray Bradbury - [u]Ender?s Game[/u] and it?s sequels. I thought enough of this series to get my copies signed by the author. - [u] The Lord of the Rings[/u] and [u]The Hobbit[/u] by J.R.R Tolkien[/color]

[quote name='Sara][size=1]Last one made me laugh. I tell you, some threads [i]never[/i'] die.[/size][/quote] [color=green]WHATE and Star Wars 411 come to mind? This was a very funny read, despite several grammatical and spelling errors. Forums can be so funny sometimes.[/color]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf] [font=Georgia][color=blue]However, for the condom breaking thing, why play with fire? Not the best idea to express love to someone who could kill you.[/color][/font][/QUOTE] [color=green]Especially when there are other way of expressing your feelings for another person that mean at least as much, if not more. As far as the distribution of AIDS drugs, it?s a very difficult choice. Drug companies sped millions of dollars and use up thousands of man-hours to create drugs that benefit only a small portion of the population. When the government tries, out of compassion, to help those who are less fortunate by regulating the drug companies and forcing them to accept price caps, they?re hurting the drug companies. Overall, you have to value human life over the profits of companies. However, this unfair treatment of drug companies is not only against the spirit of capitalism but also terrible for business. There should definitely be some major government funding for drug research, possibly a co-op program that could be beneficial to both groups. That?s my take on it.[/color]

[COLOR=Green]Er, it appears that this banner is still on your C drive. Try hosting it as an attachment.[/COLOR]

[quote name='wrist cutter']But the fact is, it isn't. Remember that whole Britney Spears thing awhile back? She got married ON A DARE. She was probably drunk at the time and so was her husband. There's no sanctity in that. Then they got divorced the next day or something.[/quote] [color=green]This is the exception, not the rule. The actions of stupid young female pop stars should have no bearing on a debate regarding Gay Marriage. You?re absolutely right, there is no sanctity whatsoever in Ms. Spears brief union with some random guy. [/color] [quote name='wrist cutter']As I recall the marriage vows including something along the lines of taking each other in sickness and health yadda yadda FOREVER. The whole fact we allow divorce pretty much blows that vow out the window. Let's face it - marriage isn't in a beautiful state right now, gays or no gays.[/quote] [color=green] This all the more reason not to further endanger and blur the definition of marriage by legalizing Gay Marriage. It?d add more fuel to the fire?[/color] [quote name='wrist cutter']It's still possible to have a "sacred" marriage, I'm sure they happen every so often. But the whole idea has become so bastardized that I really can't see how allowing gays to get married as well is going to make it any less sacred than it currently is. Whether gays are ever allowed to marry or not, marriage is no longer a sacred thing. Unless you're going to protest rednecks and drunks and a whole gaggle of other people getting married, there's very little reason to oppose gays in this situation.[/quote] [color=green]Sacred Marriage is still the norm in America. Only [URL=http://www.cfc-efc.ca/docs/vanif/00005_en.htm]44%[/URL] of marriages end in divorce. This percentage is far too high, but marriage is still the norm. I oppose any marriages between any two people who aren?t completely committed and devoted to each other. Gay Marriage would obscure the true definition of marriage and fudge it?s meaning, beginning a chain reaction that ends with a morally bankrupt society.[/color]

[quote name='Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2][FONT=Courier New]Boba: I don't mean to sound stuck up, but I'm not American. I would not want to be part of any America that supported denying a certain group of people their rights as human beings to openly love some one through both emotional openness and law. I'm sure that there are many people, already Americans, who share my views. I am not attacking your country, or your values, mind you.[/FONT][/SIZE'][/COLOR][/quote] [color=green]I would love to be part of an America that has banned Gay Marriage. Gay people, who fall in love can live together, adopt children and live their lives how they choose. I?m fine with that. Gay?s who are open about their emotions and their relationships with other homosexuals are fine by me. Legalizing this relationship under the banner of Marriage or Civil Union is not. Marriage has been between a man and a woman for over two millennia now. It?s responsible for the moral society. This kind of stable relationship is at the very core of our society. Legalizing Gay Marriage will blur both the definition and the sanctity of marriage. The meaning of this bond will be greatly diminished. I once again ask you to look at the Netherlands as an example of an experiment in Gay Marriage gone wrong. That country now has one of the world?s largest numbers of children born out of wedlock. Social problems run rampant and children are hurt by their dysfunctional families (I?m not saying Gays are bad parents here, I?m saying that the state of social degradation that exists there is hurting children born out of wedlock). There are indeed many people who share your views Godelsensei. Unfortunately for proponents of Gay Marriage, they?re in the minority. In one of my pervious posts I linked to a poll that showed that 56% of Americans oppose Gay Marriage and only 30% support it. That?s almost a two to one difference in opinion. Even if every undecided voter became a supporter of Gay Marriage, that side would still be in the minority. Due to this, most savvy politicians will not support Gay Marriage. They may not attempt to outlaw it, for fear of upsetting supporters of Gay Marriage, but they will not support it either. I don?t see this issue going anywhere fast.[/color]

[center][img] http://jedgarnieta.250free.com/NoGay.gif[/img][/center] [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']There's been some talk about the moralityof allowing same sex couples to marry. I'll probably sound either stupid or redundant but how can allowing two people who are in love be considered imoral? Explain that.[/color][/quote] [color=green]When they?re in the same family or are of inappropriate ages (10 year old girl and a fifty year old man), I consider those pairings immoral and disgusting to boot.[/color] [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']As TN has been saying, this idea has nothing to do with religion and I agree with him on it. What it has to do is with allowing people the right to marriage-the ability to enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples. The right to see their partner in ICU and to adopt children. Basic human rights which are given to most couples.[/color][/quote] [color=green]Did anyone ever say it was about religion? No. We?re talking about government and gay marriage. If someone brings religion into this discussion, then that?s his or her prerogative. However, their points will be moot due to separation of church and state.[/color] [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet'] I can argue logically and legitamately on this topic. My husband had a much more stable home life when he lived with his auint and her partner than when he lived with his mother and her string of live-in boyfriends. So I fail to see how two men or two woman could fail in their attempt to offer a child a stable loving home.[/color][/quote] [color=green]Stay on topic, stay on topic! *Crashes into Death Star* Gay Marriage is the issue, not gay adoption.[/color] [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']I was watching World News Tonight a few minutes ago and one of the legislator's from California says that in the long run this could be detrimental to the complete legalization of same sex marriages. This legislator is gay. I'm curious to see what other people think about this man's opinion. Do you feel that one person's opposition to a state's ruling could help or hurt people in the long run?[/color][/quote] [color=green]The mayor of San Francisco is breaking the law and committing a felony by allowing gays to marry. This gives Gay Marriage a bad name and an added air of illegitimacy. It could definitely hurt in the long run.[/color] [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']I'm all for democracy, but I can't see how a country that denies a group of people the basic right of marriage can be considered a democracy. If there was a law baring people from different religions or different ethnic backgrounds from marrying people would be all over the place to take down that law. How is homosexual marriage any different? (Try to stay away from bringing up incest, that isn't the same thing at all) Even if you don't want to give them a right to marry, atleast give them a civil union-or even a right to common law marriage (if that's anywhere close to the same thing. IF I got that wrong let me know.)[/color][/quote] [color=green]You got it wrong. America isn?t a democracy; it?s a republic. In a republic, the majority can, if it is a sufficiently large majority, make decisions that may seem unfair to minorities. It can also make decisions unfair to the majority. You bring up a good point about denial of rights to Gays. I feel that Gay people, as gay people, should not be allowed to marry. Marriage, in my opinion, is between a man and a woman. I?ve explained why I feel this way twice already. Gay people can still have all the rights of married people (Hospital visitation, Adoption, etc.), but they shouldn?t be allowed to marry.[/color] [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet]As for marriage being a sacred thing. Throughout history it hasn't been very sacred at all. People were married off like property to secure land or dimplomatic ties. Besides that fact, many of the european monarchs had mistresses, only sleeping with their legal spouses to produce legitamate children. Infact, King James I of England as well as a few of the French kings were homosexuals. [/color][/QUOTE] [color=green]Marriage is supposed to be sacred. In the modern era, marriage has been about love between a man and a woman. Sure, there have been and will always be arranged marriages that serve as political bridges, etc. These are a thing of the past now, in most parts of the world. European royalty is irrelevant. Just because several kings had affairs and others were homosexuals doesn?t have bearing regarding this conversation.[/color]

[quote name='Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New][SIZE=2] Personally, I hold the same view on the subject as my English teacher. In his words, (these could have been taken from somewhere else, but he said them in class) "The government has no business in the bedrooms of the country it governs."[/SIZE][/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote] [color=green]The government may not have any business in the bedrooms of the people, but the people who make up the government do. This may seem wrong to some, but if a nation decides that it wants to outlaw something it can do so. If a majority of Americans decide that they simply don?t want to allow gay marriage in their country they have the means to outlaw it. This is a government by the people, for the people. The people will decide what goes on in their country. California has exercised this right and other states, possibly even the federal government, may as well.[/color] [quote name='Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New][SIZE=2] To be frank, I think the whole thing is very silly. If it's not hurting you directly, then you have no right to speak against it, unless it invovles hurting others. Since when does openly loving another human being count as hurting some one, aside from your ex-significant other?[/SIZE][/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote] [color=green]If it?s not hurting you directly, then you have no right to speak against it, unless it involves hurting others? This will hurt others. It?ll crack the bedrock from which all society is based. Into that crack, things will pour. Finally, the rock will shatter. I don?t like the idea of that happening. Our society has, for millennia, had marriages between one man and one woman. Together, they raise their children. It is only since the sexual revolution that our society has entered into a period of great social upheaval. Since then, things have gone downhill. I can tell you that the clothing some people, especially females, wear to school would have been completely unacceptable then. Janet Jackson would be a social outcast, unable to sell albums or get any kind of pop-star gig. Rappers who spew profanity would be looked upon with disgust, not admiration. Legalizing gay marriage will further attack the traditional lifestyle that has served our culture well since America was founded. I don?t think we should throw it away now.[/color] [QUOTE=Mitch][size=1][color=red] It's only for those morally upbrang religious people that seem to think it's wrong. That think having "morals" topples everything. [/size][/color][/QUOTE] [color=green]Only moral people think its wrong? Sounds like a good argument [b]against[/b] gay marriage to me.[/color] [quote name='Mitch][size=1][color=red]It said all men are created equal. That's what the laws of this union state.[/size'][/color][/quote] [color=green]That?s right. I?m just as equal as everyone else. Except when I apply to college, which is a different issue entirely. It?s also my right to speak my mind, so I?ll take advantage of my first amendment right and do so. It?s fine if you oppose my position, but don?t expect me to take it lying down.[/color]

[QUOTE=Molleta][color=green]Forgive the ignorace on my part, but could someone please elaborate on the difference between a Marriage and a Civil Union are for me? [/color][/QUOTE] [color=green]As far as I know, the difference between Marriage and Civil Unions is in name only. This different name for the same act was created in an attempt to be more acceptable to opponents of gay marriage and therefore more politically correct. Kind of funny that we both use the same font, color and size options...[/color]

[color=green]Hope this is what you were looking for... If you do decide to use it, I'd appreciate it if you'd host it yourself. I'm short on bandwidth as it is. [img]http://jedgarnieta.250free.com/MatrixBanner.jpg[/img][/color]

[color=green]As far as Christians sharing their faith with me personally, it?s a truly wonderful thing. Not being a religious person, I?m fascinated by the beauty that is present in many churches. Catholicism in particular is fascinating and I enjoyed my religion classes immensely while I was in Catholic schools. Faith also has played a monumental role in history. To understand religion is often to understand the cause of major historical events. The Middle East today is an excellent example of this, understanding Islam makes the whole region easier to understand. I think that Christians should share their faith, but not like this pilot did. People don?t get on planes to receive sermons. Especially considering current events, people are already rather nervous on airplanes. It?s not the right place to share faith. What this pilot did isn?t appropriate and he should be punished accordingly. Public displays of faith are fine by me. I?m not sure how the rest of you feel, but I don?t mind displays of faith. When in church or youth groups with friends, I?ll stand or kneel out of respect for their beliefs. I just don?t pray, as that?d be hypocritical and insulting because of my lack of faith. I don?t think that religion has a place in schools or public places, but by the same token people should be able to wear religious themed clothing and jewelry while in public places. If a student wants to pray or worship during lunch or other free time while in school, that should be the student?s prerogative. It?s difficult to balance people?s first admendment rights with the seperation of church and state. Hopefully, the USA will be able to strike that balance and walk the thin line without upsetting too many people.[/color]

[color=green]From a quick google search, I?ve found that [u]Pokemon: Leaf Green[/u] and [u]Pokemon: Fire Red[/u] were released in Japan last month. They?re not in English yet, but apparently they?re available worldwide from Internet retailers. Concerning these games, I wouldn?t spend a penny on them. They?re simply touched up and graphically revised editions of the original Japanese red and green versions. Oh, I forgot to mention that they follow the pathetic Pokemon game tradition of adding new Pokemon and new places to explore. Same old game on a new map with a few new features. It looks like the dying gasp of a fad that overstayed its welcome.[/color]

[QUOTE=Lady Asphyxia][font=Verdana][size=1]What I find humerous [apart from the humour in the essay] is that most of the links have now been deleted with the coming of V7. *grins* And the fact that you backed up your claims of Tony's horrible use of evidence with evidence struck me as incredibly funny. [/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=1]Well done, again, Dragon Warrior. ^_^" Funny and well placed humour, hee. [/size][/font][/QUOTE] [color=green]Thanks to all for the kind comments. As for the now shattered links that pervade my post, I can?t find most of the threads in question. They seem to have been deleted from the archive, or are buried deep within it. I guess you?ll have to use your imaginations. One last thing. I?m Boba. Don?t forget that Lady Asphy.[/color]

[quote name='Queen Asuka][color=hotpink][size=1]Wow, that is so disgusting. But thankfully I can say that I haven't really been in contact with human feces other than my own. I'm not sure where I got it from since I was one of the first people around here to actually catch the virus. It was so awful, though. Things seem to finally be winding down, which is a good thing. Down here at UGA we're calling it "The Plague." I myself am considered to be a "Pioneer of the Plague" since I was one of the first to catch it.[/color'][/size][/quote] [color=green]I?m certainly glad that your campus is settling down again. I have a difficult time making up missed class when I?m sick, so I can only imagine the work that goes into making up college classes. My guess is that you picked up the ?plague? from eating out someplace with rather disgusting employees. Maybe you should change the group of restaurants you frequent? Good thing Norwalk is relatively harmless if you take good care of yourself while you?re affected. After all, there?s no cure and it?s extremely virulent.[/color]

[color=green]I love the effects Sennen but, as you mentioned, the text is lacking. I too have had monumental difficulties with PSP?s text options. The text comes out fuzzy sometimes and several fonts are unusable at reasonable sizes due to this. I especially like the hexagonal patterns in the ice portion of the banner, they contrast nicely with the deeper orange within the fire swirl. All I can say is to continue fiddling with the text, as it?s the single area where you could improve. -Boba[/color]

[color=green]First off, I?d like to congratulate Mofati on making a quality and original RPG. This one is far better than your last one. [b]Name:[/b] Jedgar Nieta [b]Age:[/b] 15 [b]Gender:[/b] Male [b]Social Group:[/b] Stiff [b]Short Description:[/b] Jedgar is short, scrawny and lacks any kind of upper body strength. In fact, the only muscles in his body that are developed are his leg muscles, which he uses to flee from angry restaurant employees, and his brain. He wears worn green cargo pants, a tattered gray T-shirt and a dirty yellow sweatshirt. Trying to keep clean is no easy task for a Stiff, most of his class have abandoned hygiene all together. Jedgar despises this literally filthy habit, and often breaks into Preen houses in order to bathe and wash his clothes. [b]Personality:[/b] Jedgar likes to act cool, cold and emotionless. He sees it as a sign of status, something that he desperately lacks. As a result, he?s tried to conform to Preen society in the vain hope of finding acceptance. [b]Deepest Desire:[/b] Status. Jedgar would do anything to become a Preen. His loyalties would melt away in an instant for this chance. [b]Bio:[/b] Born on the streets of a large city as the result of a drunken encounter between two morally repulsive Stiffs, Jedgar was raised by his ?people? until he was around five. He was then abandoned, naked and defenseless, onto the streets. He was able to survive on his own by digging through garbage and finding bits of uneaten food. Numerous times he was beaten by Preens who caught him digging through their trash. This miserable existence continued until he reached the age of ten. It was then that he began to rob fast food restaurants, ordering food and snatching it from the counter. He?d then run for the door, angry burger flippers hot on his heels. With his source of sustenance more or less assured, Jedgar began to devote his time to other things. Out of curiosity, he broke into a Preen mansion while nobody was home. Having the whole house to himself, he tried on clothing for the first time and began looking around. Odd bricks lined the walls. He took one out. It was soft, and there were squiggles on the paper between the hard cardboard at the ends. Preens were so odd? Another room contained an odd closet with a see through glass door. Inside was a bar of white stuff and a nozzle up on the ceiling. He turned it, and leapt back as water poured from it. He put his hand back inside. It was pleasantly warm. This must be a shower, Jedgar thought. His exploration of the house and the amenities that it had to offer lasted several hours. By the end of his visit, Jedgar had picked out a set of clothing and was clean for the first time in his life. After packing his pockets with non-perishable food and a PDA, he left the house undetected. Years went by. Jedgar taught himself to read and write using the PDA he?d stolen. His breaking and entering habit had become chronic. Whenever he got to chance, he?d enter a Preen household and steal more food books and clothing. He?d also take books to read and jewelry to pawn off. It was much easier to steal from mansions belonging to vacationing Preens than to dig through dumpsters. By the time he reaches fifteen, Jedgar is an accomplished thief who enjoys living the high life. He?s much better off than most Stiffs and is very ambitious? [b]Additional Information:[/b] Jedgar has acquired a companion, a German Shepard by the name of Sarah. His loyal companion follows him everywhere and would gladly sacrifice herself for him.[/color]

[quote name='Sage']But that is the situation in Finland. I've been following the news about this issue lately, and I really don't think it is the time for gay marriages in USA. There's just too much going on there, beyond the pond, as we say. It seems that the atmosphere there has too much hatred and prejudice and will to avenge that stirring the conservatists is a bit too risky... Who knows what kind of gay-banning law the Congress will put up if they're too pressed. Really, politics is a dangerous game when played by morons![/quote] [color=green]Stirring up conservatives is risky? It?s not like we?re going to outlaw homosexuality and chuck homosexuals in camps? The Congress of the United States would never pass any legislation that would ban gays, to think so is absurd. The Congress may pass legislation banning gay marriage, but it would never go out of its way to persecute homosexuals. Your last comment, regard morons and politics, annoys me. I?m assuming you?re saying the conservatives that oppose Gay Marriage and/or Civil Unions are morons. I don?t like to assume things, so I?ll wait for you to reply on that one. You?d be advised to avoid name-calling because of political, religious or spiritual views.[/color]

[quote name='cloricus']No, the scary thing is the US supported most of the people that are out to get them now. That is just bad relations with groups they help which urgently needs to be looked at and should have been when they noticed bin landen going bad ten years or so ago. Now would be a good time to be changing it because the "northern alliance" is doing exactly what osama did after the Russians pulled out with American help, America basically forgot about them, and I'm sure you guys don't need yet another enemy.[/quote] [color=green]Cloricus, you?re correct about the US having Cold War relationships with its present enemies. That?s about it. We?ve done nothing to sour our relationships with these people that we ?allied with? during the Cold War. Al Qaeda and Iraq were both pawns in our war against the USSR. The CIA aided the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, much of which later formed into the nucleus of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, under the ?the enemy of our enemy is our friend? philosophy. We knew the Mudjahideen were part of an extremely radical perversion of Islam that feeds on anger and hatred. However, we were more concerned with beating our rival the USSR. We assisted these people in defeating the Soviets and then left. We did what we promised to do. Nothing more, nothing less. However, Osama only began to attack the United States after the first Gulf War. Sure, we weren?t well liked in the Middle East because of our acceptance of the Shah of Iran, but the arrival of US troops in Saudi Arabia set Osama off. Apparently he feels that the entire Middle East should be off limits to ?infidels?. After Gulf War I, Osama became our enemy. He didn?t ?go bad? as you claim Cloricus. Osama always was a terrible person. He just needed a new target for his network, a new goal to unite his Al Qaeda network. We, being the new sole world power, were the logical choice. As for Iraq, we operated under the same philosophy we used with the Taliban. Everyone in the world knew Saddam was a crackpot dictator who was up to no good, but we needed him to fight the Iranians. After the US Embassy hostage situation in Tehran, the Iranians were no friends of ours. Therefore, it made sense to give limited support to Saddam while he fought against the Iranians. The US doesn?t cut and run on our allies. Iraq and the Mujahideen were [I]never[/I] our allies. We merely made deals of mutual benefit with them. After we?d fulfilled our obligations, they knew we?d leave.[/color] [quote name='cloricus']Also I'd like to note that there still isn't a good reason why Saddam shouldn't still be out there hiding.[/quote] [color=green]You?ve got to be kidding me. There are several reasons Saddam should be in a shallow grave, his body riddled with bullets. Regardless of your take on the WMD issue, or the US?s justifications for war, you?ve got to agree that the world is a better place without Saddam in power. This man killed thousands of people, imprisoned political opponents, allowed his sons to terrorize the country and wrecked the fragile ecosystem of his country.[/color] [quote name='cloricus']Added: in reply to that picture and please note that I'm not bias for either side of American politics because I just don't know them but; Fidle Castro is a great leader of his country, they have survived for a very long time under US sanctions which would normally reck countries (eg Iraq) yet every citizen has enough food, clean water, health care, security and support to live from the government. Sure it's all second rate but they have it and that's without help from the out side world so I wouldn't sell Castro short as I know a certain US of A that doesn't have this sort of system and why should he be a bad man just because you guys have been spoon feed propaganda since you were in school? (I've seen some of the stuff Americans are shown on this man and I really can't think of another word that fits better than propaganda.) And; Kerry voting for a tax increase? So? Countries need money to run, if they don't have it they collapse. Economic stability is one of the most important parts of a country and if they don't get it right it's not worth being in that country.[/quote] [color=green]Fidel Castro is nothing more than a ball of slime. I?ve not been taught about him in school, yet, so most of this is going to come from the news and books. He imprisons his political opponents and his country has major social problems. There is a reason why Cubans flee their homeland and take asylum in the United States? If Castro has built such a great nation, why aren?t liberals and communists in the US flocking to it? As for Kerry?s voting under the Clinton administration for the biggest tax increase in history, there are other alternatives he could have advocated. Raising taxes isn?t the only way the government can create more revenue. One of these is cutting pork programs from the budget.[/color]

[color=green]I?ve noticed something rather annoying. Every time I open up my ?edit content? screen, my quote is butchered. I have no idea why, and it only seems to affect my quote. This has proven to be most annoying, as I must retype my quote every time I change anything on that page. Can this be fixed? -Boba[/color]

[color=green]I agree with you 100% Japan. While I disapprove of several things Bush has done while president, overall I think he?s the best choice in the election next year. The Democrats have begun to put out propaganda, as have the Republicans, in anticipation of the election this November. I?ll leave you with some propaganda of my own. [IMG]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17454[/IMG][/color]