James

[color=#808080]Actually, I wouldn't say that it's ludicrous to compare the United States to Australia in terms of education. Perhaps you have misconceptions about how [i]our[/i] education system works? ~_^ Our system is much like yours, in the sense that school policy is not something dictated by the Federal Government. In fact, the Federal Government essentially plays no role in either primary (elementary) or secondary school education. Rather, the states themselves are responsible for school policy. And specifically, state boards of education are responsible for setting cirriculum guidelines. My state, for example, has totally different systems for dealing with University entrance than say...New South Wales. Of course, both states are using different educational systems, but both are essentially arriving at the same goal. Secondly, what do size and "demographic region" have to do with it? I mean, it's not like we have the same number of schools as the USA but with less people in each school; we obviously have a level of schooling that services our population, the same as the USA. So that argument seems a bit moot to me - it's a relative issue. And I don't know what you mean by demographic region. That's a very vague term and you haven't really specified what you mean by it. Having said all of the above, I don't feel that your point about the education system in America being controlled on local levels is any excuse for poor school performance. As I said, Australia has a similar system. The only major difference that I would really point to would be the fact that the Federal Government works with the states to set up robust standards that schools need to meet. That creates a business-like, competitive environment for all schools (where schools invariably benefit by competing in a sense). I get the impression that the Bush Administration actually wants to increase accountability in schools -- an idea which several public servants in the USA have not liked. But Bush is right; more accountability is always important, particularly when it comes to creating national standards (whereby all students can reach certain levels of accomplishment within a certain timeframe). So, I personally don't think I have any misconceptions about the American education system. You might have been referring to someone else, but you quoted my post, which is why I'm responding now. I hope that I've at least clarified my viewpoint.[/color]

[color=#808080]It's a nice idea, but not something we're going to include anytime soon. I say that primarily because there are a ton of other things we have to do that are going to have a greater impact on the boards. But eithe I'm busy, or Justin's busy...and it doesn't get done on time. So we're trying our best to get around the time issues. In addition, a quick attachment feature could potentially be a problem with mass spammers (you know, attaching a million files to threads everywhere within five minutes). That's not the reason we don't have the feature right now (because it's a risk we'd probably be willing to take), but it's a risk regardless.[/color]

[color=#808080]That's true; it has no direct link with anime. However, it is generally used as a term that relates to anime/manga. It's funny how "Otaku" has become almost a western word in that sense, with a meaning that seems to constantly evolve over its original intention in Japanese. o_O;[/color]

[color=#808080]OtakuBoards is a relatively free place, in the sense that people can choose which threads they want to reply to. Nobody can change that. I can't force people to reply to questions if they choose not to; it's just how the boards work. I don't know what else I can say - it's the members who decide which threads get replies and which ones don't. I don't think you can really blame anyone for that. You might also want to look at the questions you're asking; either people don't know the answers or you're asking something redundant (or something that's only just been answered a few threads back). Members are not always going to sit down and go through that sort of thing with you for various reasons. And really, they shouldn't have to either.[/color]

[color=#808080]I would also like to add some clarification here, regardling links to sites other than OtakuBoards. Our rules clearly state that a) members may not create threads specifically to advertise their own site and b) members may not create threads to advertise sites in general. Having said that, it is appropriate to link to any site you wish within a post if it is relevant. If you're talking about DragonBall Z and you're giving advice, you're free to say something like "go here for more details" and such. However, if you post a link to a site that is pornographic (or breaks any of our rules in some major way, which is a pretty obvious thing anyway), you are in serious violation and will probably be banned immediately. I am [i]hoping[/i] to get a fully updated rules put up soon - pending a few other important developments. I understand that it can be frustrating to have rules that are not updated, so I will do my best to work on that quickly. But still, our current rules are mostly pretty adequate. They outline general things that we expect and they provide quite a few specific examples of what we don't like to see at OB. So as always, [b]read the rules page[/b] if you are unsure about anything. You can find a link to it at the top of the page, regardless of the skin you're using. Remember; if you do not read the rules, you are running the risk of being banned. Moderators [i]will not accept[/i] ignorance of the rules as an excuse for rule breaking behavior. We expect every member to read the rules when they join, with zero exceptions. Of course, there is some room for flexibility and we'll rarely ban right away. But please keep this advice in mind, especially if you're new here. It's always worth remembering the way things work at OB. [/color]

[color=#808080]Yes, I think that the comparison to Evangelion is a very good one. A [i]lot[/i] of people get turned off by EVA because they don't really understand it - and maybe they don't want to sit down and really think about it on a broader level. I think that Reloaded is very similar in that sense. Maybe people were expecting a simple sequel to The Matrix; I don't know. But clearly, this isn't just a sequel...it's a complete expansion of the story. It's almost as though The Matrix was just a short introduction to the main story (which isn't a negative reflection on The Matrix, but a positive reflection on Reloaded). Either way, I'm greatly looking forward to Revolutions. ^_^[/color]

Hm, ThePikasElbow: [spoiler]I really liked the scene where Neo spoke to the counsellor. I felt that it was quite a telling moment. In a sense, the counsellor [i]was[/i] rambling. But really, he was bringing about some very interesting questions on the symbiosis of man and machine. I actually found that to be quite an interesting sequence - the discussion of the odd relationship between the two. Also, I feel that The Arhictect revealed a lot of things about the plot. It seems as though maybe you didn't understand what he was saying, which seems to be a common problem among viewers (and partly why people seem to be disliking the movie a little bit). For instance, The Architect made it quite obvious who the mother of The Matrix is - Neo even [i]said[/i] who it is out aloud.[/spoiler][color=#808080] Imsirion seems to bring up a similar complaint in that sense, as her description of the movie is kinda overly simplistic and I think it's obvious that she doesn't really grasp much of the story at all. I'm not saying that to be mean/negative or anything - it's just an observation. I've noticed that a LOT of people have misunderstood major aspects of the movie and I think it's hurt their enjoyment of it. The story for this movie is one of the best I've ever encountered and, while Reloaded [i]did[/i] have some useless scenes in the beginning, the story ultimately unfolded in a powerful and seamless way. I actually found the action to be far less interesting than the story - and I tend to pick up on poor scripts very easily as something I dislike about a movie. So, by the end, I was actually quite surprised at how well they'd pulled off such a complex situation (with so many things to explain). The ending was interesting, in the sense that it will bring about a very frantic beginning to Revolutions. It really makes me wonder who will win; man or machine. Right now, Neo and his comrades seem to have everything weighing against them. [spoiler]One thing I really loved was the idea of hope - and how hope was what kept them going. Yet, even the hope was false; it was part of the machines' control. When you lose hope, what happens to you? Do you need hope to survive? What happens when you are slapped in the face by the cold harsh realities of the world you live in? I think there are some [i]huge[/i] parallels with established religion there. And I think that, rather than handling them in a clumsy and obvious fashion, the film makers really handled it in quite a subtle and easy to understand way. [/spoiler] Anyway, I'm rambling here...but I really encourage everyone who didn't like the movie as much to see it again and perhaps to read some of the summaries about it. I really feel that this movie deserves to be investigated further, because it's [i]not[/i] just a lame excuse for cool effects. I feel that this movie could be masterful without any action at all, which speaks volumes about its weaving storyline.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Chaos [/i] [B] James, to go back to old matters, facism was great in pre WWII times. Nazism greatly enheartened the people of Germany at the time. Sure, there were economic troubles, but that was war debt that was all put on the Germans' shoulders. I suppose I should have specifically said how it was "ideal for a certain population". Capitalism is about free enterprise, yes, but I've seen WalMart employees on strike because the building of a new supercenter made a small, family-owned gift store go out of business. One of the protesters had a sign that read "Power to the underdogs - Stop retail dictatorship!". A week later, I read in the paper the strike had been settled, and most of the workers got a considerably nice raise. There hasn't been a peep of complaint since then, and that was a few months ago. Now then, don't try to play me when I live neck-deep in this ********. ;) [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#808080]I would strongly dispute the idea that facism was [i]great[/i] in pre WWII times. I know two different German families, with whom I've discussed this very issue among others (including WWII itself). Once again, it's easy to make these comments when you're living in a free nation. But if you go back and ask older Germans how they felt about that era, most will tell you that it was a painful time for Germany. Of course, the era ended with WWII. But even before the war, the government system in Germany was horribly oppressive and the entire society was suffering as a result. As far as your second paragraph; I don't know what point you're trying to make. Are you trying to say that capitalism has its casualties? If that's your message, I agree. But once again, capitalism is not perfect - and I don't think anyone would imply that it is. Rather, I think the message is that you [i]can[/i] have capitalism, as long as you have a robust safety net underpinning it. Your example about the strike dispute being settled is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to sit here and say that capitalism is perfect and every other system is pointless. [i]Any[/i] economic system will have problems, which will always need a counterbalance. What I am saying, however, is that when comparing capitalism to communism, there is simply no equating the two. And Harry...as far as public education goes, I think you'll find that Australia is an example of a strong public education system (unless you're talking about American states, in which case my comment is irrelevant). As far as exploitation goes...yes, welfare is often heavily exploited. But what are we going to do? You will never stop exploitation of public services. It can be human nature to lie, cheat, etc... Just the same as you'll never get rid of crime. I mean, you certainly can't attack welfare systems by saying that they are exploited (as though that should be a reason for removing or degrading them). That's like saying that we should never have big public events, for fear of terrorism or something. Any system will be exploited, but such systems also provide immeasureable benefits to a large group of people.[/color]

[color=#808080]On the contrary; I think that most of the music in Reloaded was wholly appropriate. There was seemingly more electronic music in this movie than the last, which is a good thing (because firstly, it suits the theme of the movie and secondly, it's a higher quality of electronic music than was in the first movie). I was quite happy with the mix. A good mix of various genres - and most of it was quite appropriate for the theme and style of the movie. But anyway, you know the track that plays during the car chase scene? Does anyone know what that's called and who it's by? I want to sample a few tracks before I go out and buy the album. The first CD looks to have a very small selection of tracks, so I'm hoping that the second CD has some of the good long electronic tracks on it (the BGM, as has been said here). Any info on that would be appreciated.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by klinanime1 [/i] [B]*sigh* okay, one more time. Capitalism is a form of economy. You're comparing a consumer based market to communism and socialism. Capitalism is NOT a form of governement, because a socialist government can have a capitalist economy. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#808080]I'd say that's half true. If you look at socialist Russia during the middle of the last century (and if you look at most communist/socialist nations), there is inherently a limit on capitalism. This is because, in many ways, capitalism is the polar opposite of communism - communism is a "one size fits all" policy, where wealth is shared among the people (to put it in very blunt terms). Whereas capitalism is a far more flexible system where the individual has more self ownership rights. I mean, it's only recently become legal to purchase certain quantities of land for private use - and that's in Russia. China is probably the best example of a communist nation with a growing "capitalist" economic system. But of course, communism places its inherent restrictions on capitalism in that country too. It's very hard to put both together, I think - it's certainly never been done successfully before.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dan L [/i] [B] So yeah. My point is I think you can allow a little bit of flexibility when it comes to pronunciation :p [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#808080]Oh yeah, that is true. But I'm talking about actually using English incorrectly. So it's kinda like in The Simpsons, where the pilot says "Nothing could [i]possiblye[/i] go wrong. Oh, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong". You know...like if you compare "possi-blye" to "possi-blee". There is a right way and a wrong way. That's what I was trying to point out with the word "often". Of course, accents do change the way words sound, but when speaking English, there is a standardized way to actually say words, even if your pronounciation differs via your accent.[/color]

[color=#808080]I would also point out that Nintendo has over $7 billion in [i]cash[/i] - aside from any non-cash investments. That's Nintendo's "rainy day fund", so to speak. A $7 billion safety net isn't too bad, I'd say. ~_^[/color]

[color=#808080] Arkadyz is basically right with most of his reasoning about the movie. Interestingly, I think that Reloaded makes the series more complex than it was in the first movie. Rather than being a tacked-on sequel, Reloaded significantly expands the entire storyline and provides some major twists. The conversation with [spoiler]The Architect[/spoiler] was [i]most[/i] interesting. It was my favourite part of the movie, in terms of what it revealed about The Matrix. Generally, this movie was much more accomplished than the first. Yes, the first third of the movie was kinda slow - it took a while to really get into the meat of the story. But having said that, this movie is worth more than the sum of its parts. I read some reviews and after seeing it myself, I feel that some reviewers underrated it because they didn't understand it - yes, it [i]is[/i] complex if you don't have a good grasp of english and the ability to concentrate on the dialogue. The girl next to me in the cinema was a classic example of this...she wouldn't shut up and half the time she was like "Oh! I don't get it!" She didn't get it largely because she wouldn't stop talking. lol But yeah, very good movie. I'm still impressed by the fact that they are using Sydney without showing anything that is truly recognizable as Sydney (except for the road signs and a few other things). It's clever - and it's somewhat surreal. I'm also impressed by the production levels...I think like the first movie, Reloaded will really help to expand the movie industry down here. Good stuff. Right now I think this movie deserves 9/10. That'd probably go down half a point with time...but I'm very impressed by the fact that Reloaded isn't a tacked-on sequel. It truly pushes the story into new areas and it doesn't create any erroneous links and such. Very good. ^_^[/color]

[color=#808080]If someone posts in your RPG without your permission (if you've chosen to designate who will join), then you should tell them that they aren't allowed in. If they ignore you, PM Warlock (the forum's moderator). However, you must remember to explicitly state whether or not you are choosing members. Some RPGs are "open sign ups", where the creator doesn't choose members, but accepts all who sign up. So there could be confusion there. So, make sure that you clearly state your intentions within the recruitment thread. And, as always, if there are any problems, notify the forum's Moderator.[/color]

[color=#808080]Hm, well, there aren't many words that stump me (when it comes to pronounciation), mostly because I'm always hearing all sorts of bizarre terminology at school. o_O Although I do notice that people generally pronounce some words wrong (or use them incorrectly). I'll give you two examples of pet peeves. lol First is the word "often". I notice that people frequently say [b]off-ten[/b]. But that's not correct. The 't' is silent. [b]Off-en[/b]. The other would be the phrase "I could care less about that". So, if I'm talking about something I don't care about, I might say (incorrectly): "I could care less about Eminem's record sales" When actually, it should be "I [b]couldn't[/b] care less about Eminem's record sales" If you say [i]could[/i] care less, it means that you actually care about the very thing that you are implying you care little about. lol I think I've mentioned it before and someone told me where it originated...but it's horrible. lol I really dislike it when people use that phrase incorrectly. It sounds stupid and it makes no sense. I'm starting to think that kids don't even know that it doesn't make sense, despite the fact that if you really LOOK at the wording, it contradicts the intention that it is used for. So yeah, those are a couple of my language pet-peeves, I guess. ^_^;;[/color]

[color=#808080]I think we need to understand that fundamentally, Final Fantasy never resolves any deep issues of society. Whether we are discussing same sex or opposite sex relationships, it doesn't matter. Whether or not Square Enix were to include same sex or opposite sex...it really doesn't mean anything. As I said earlier, just look at the opposite sex relationships we've seen in Final Fantasy games over the years (particularly from VII onward). For the most part, these relationships had been handled in a clumsy fashion. Whether or not a homosexual relationship were included would make no difference on that point. Having said that, I don't think that the question is "why include homosexual relationships?" I think the question is more like "Why [i]not[/i] include homosexual relationships?" And really, that has been answered -- it's business. Just as a company may not want to depict interracial marriages during the 1950's, companies today are reluctant to depict same sex relationships. That's really about the size of it. For me personally, I think that whether or not the characters are the same sex or the opposite sex is entirely irrelevant. There are a few reasons for that. First and foremost, Final Fantasy (whilst still having a massive focus on story) is fundamentally a video game. And as such, it needs to be [i]playable[/i] moreso than [i]watchable[/i]. If the game plays horribly, it doesn't matter how wonderful the story is. But if the game plays beautifully, a slightly worse story can probably be tolerated. I think there are many examples of this, with both Square Enix and other developers. My point is simply that if you had a new Final Fantasy game where you had a deliberate homosexual relationship between two male or female characters, I don't think it would negatively affect the game regardless of your personal beliefs. If the game [i]is fun to play[/i], I don't think it will matter much. And if it DOES matter, then I think you need to check your maturity level (to quote Ginny there ^_^). Having said all of this, I feel that including homosexuality in games is no different to including other minorities (such as including minority race characters and such). Whilst we shouldn't necesarily go overboard and try to cater the minority just for the sake of being fair (and potentially spend too much time on that aspect, rather than making a good game), I still think it's reasonable to expect companies to be socially aware; to be aware of the diversity of their audience. I would say that generally speaking, you can strike a balance between both sides. As has been pointed out, homosexuality has been at least somewhat depicted in Final Fantasy before (though perhaps in a highly childish way, rather than in a mature/reasonable sense). Anyway, that's my ramble. Homosexuality [i]will[/i] happen in games more often in the future I think, it's more a matter of when than if. But certainly, it's worth discussing these subjects at the current time.[/color]

[color=#808080]CM, please quit posting with the cApItAlS thing. It's very annoying. I recommend reading our rules, so that you're aware of the quality we expect to see at OtakuBoards. There is a really simple solution to this. Just ask her if you can kiss her. Simple. No need for these fifty step plans and stuff - everyone is different anyway, so they won't always work. Just ask her if you can kiss her. If she wants to, she'll say yes. Otherwise, at least you won't have made a fool of yourself by moving in without her permission.[/color]

[color=#808080]C'mon guys, quit spamming. Most of the stuff on this last page isn't even related to the topic at hand - you should know better. [/color]

[color=#808080]Well, really, I don't think that exploring homosexuality/bisexuality in an RPG is a bad thing. At least, we have to realize that we aren't necessarily talking about [i]sex[/i], but that we're talking about flirting/love - something lighthearted and usually the way in which Square deals with the subject of love. I mean, you could have a male/female romance as the main plot but still have gay characters. There's no reason why you can't, other than homophobia, really. Having said that, I don't worry too much about it. I understand that Square Enix is a business; that it has to be careful about these things. However, I also feel that some developers could potentially make games much more interesting by adding these kinds of subplots in. It can certainly make for a more intriguing story. But it HAS to fit into the story. Putting a gay character in just for the sake of it would be silly, in my opinion. I'd also agree strongly with what Semjaza said. Final Fantasy [i]rarely[/i] deals with love in an appropriate fashion. It's usually so ridiculously melodromatic that it hurts the story. I disliked the romance in FFX, because it seemed pointless to me. It was overemphasized and was pushed to a point where it became highly unbelievable. So, before we even discuss homosexuality in games...I think we need to consider how love is dealt with in general. Few games deal with it in an effective way - Final Fantasy or otherwise. [/color]

[color=#808080]Oh god...I give up. lol Firstly, did you even [i]understand[/i] my comment about your shrugging off of what you'd said earlier? Your little warning doesn't make any sense, not to mention the fact that I'm not criticizing you for an opinion -- I'm criticizing you for making a an irrelevant jab at something I've said and then glossing over it as though you didn't mean it or something. Geeze. Secondly, your entire set of "observations" about the United States is all fine and good. But I don't see how any of it would bring you to the conclusion that the United States' economy will be "killed" in the future as a result of the factors you mentioned. You think Bush's stupid comment about imports has [i]any[/i] bearing on the future of the US economy? And your contention about how the downturn in the economy is somehow more threatening because there is a challenge is also pretty hard to prove, in my view. For one thing, you're forgetting that most of the world's economies are basket cases right now; a lot worse than that of the United States. In addition, you're implying that China's development is going to be a factor in the so-called "death" of the US economy. No, I don't think so. If anything, China's expansion is going to fuel further American investment within China (as it's already been doing). Whilst you may possibly argue that Chinese products could replace American counterparts around the world (which is probably a fair comment, though you never actually pointed it out), I could also argue that America's losses would be offset by their increased investment within China (American products being distributed in a market where personal wealth is growing, due to an increase in freedom and democracy). I'm starting to feel that we're going around in circles here. Cloricus, you don't even seem to grasp why I took issue with your dismissive comments earlier. And furthermore, I don't see any relevance in the observations you've brought up here; they're just a mish-mash of elements that may or may not have negative connotations toward America. Not only is much of it unrelated to America's economic performance, but I'd say that none of it addresses the question of [i]why[/i] America's economy is going to die, as you specifically stated. EDIT: I still don't buy your explanation. You may have been ranting (and I accept that you were). But that doesn't excuse a poor argument, does it? Just as you decided to use your rant to attack my post, I defended what I said and pointed out why your attack was wrong. That's fair.[/color]

[b]Ancient Force:[/b] Atomos [b]Power:[/b] Gravity [b]Attack:[/b] Universal Implosion [b]Incarnation:[/b] Zara Slade [b]Gender:[/b] Female [b]Supposed Age:[/b] 28 [b]Trade:[/b] Illusionist [b]Weapon:[/b] Scepter [b]Appearance:[/b] Think of the character Persephone in Matrix: Reloaded. White latex-like dress, long black hair, deep green eyes. I'll try to get a picture and put it up here. As always, time is a problem for me. But I never post unless it's something worth putting up (ie: I never write rushed posts). I prefer to write good quality posts as opposed to nothing at all. Also, I chose a female character because there are few at the moment (and I guess Atomos can be male or female). I also like a change in my characters once in a while. ^_^

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i] [B] This, as [b]I've[/b] seen is a [i]fair[/i] analysis of the American political system. It's an alternative to democracy and it's also most likely the reason that is coursing America to slowly fall apart.[/quote][/b] [color=#808080]I'd still like to know how America is "slowly falling apart".[/color][quote][i] Originally posted by Cloricus:[/i][b] Now even if you don't agree with the above, which I can almost guaranty James won?t, you still have to admit that America isn't really a democracy in the sense of the word anymore. One of the most clear cut examples is how the persent president got into power. Both sides played so dirty that in the end it was basically a toss of a coin that decided the winner. (Anyone could have won.)[/quote][/b] [color=#808080]Well, I don't know how the electoral college decided on Bush. And I do know that he didn't receive the majority of the popular vote. But, I'd point you to our own electoral system. The person who wins the most votes isn't necessarily the person who is elected to office. There is a [i]reason[/i] for that - vote numbers are adjusted based on a huge number of factors (population, geography, etc etc) and ultimately, the result is designed to be more fair; to take into account the views of everyone in their entirity. I could go into more detail about that, but I [i]assume[/i] that the electoral college is doing the same thing as our preferential voting system. So it's not a question of the winner being the toss of a coin. It's a question of following a carefully designed process, which more accurately reflects the public vote.[/color][quote] [i]Originally posted by Cloricus:[/i][b] But as I stated before, Capitalism has its place in the world. Personally I believe that place is America, it?s what made the country so great and it?s what?s most likly going to kill it in the future, economically.[/quote][/b] [color=#808080]Once again, [i]how[/i] could capitalism possibly kill America economically? How on Earth can we have a reasonable discussion if you're going to throw vague comments like that around? I don't think I'm unreasonable to ask you to clarify that. I want you to tell me exactly how capitalism is going to kill America, economically.[/color] [quote][i]Originally posted by Cloricus:[/i][b] I?m aware that I skipped over a lot which will most likely make my post non-understandable but my IPT and English assignments are more important and I just wanted to get that quote in while clarifying my earlier post and also to tell James that that thing about the University was a one of rant. Which no longer applies because the uni I want to go to has said that they don?t intend to increase their prices if the changes come in. :P Eps ? Heh! [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#808080]Ohh, so you were just [i]ranting[/i]. Even though you tried to tie a vague link between what I said and the Treasurer's budget speech (when there was no link whatsoever) and then tried to tell me that it made my post "silly". I see. Perhaps next time you could keep the ranting out of your posts - or at least put up a tag with something like "WARNING! Unrelated, clumsy RANT ahead!" I'm sorry Cloricus, but your attempt to just shrug that off is really lame. lol Honestly, you can't expect me to take you seriously if you draw some kind of ridiculous comparison in all seriousness, and then later shrug it off as a rant, as though I should have just ignored it in the first place. If you're not going to discuss things properly, then you really shouldn't be posting in the thread. All I'm asking is a little more thought before you post.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathKnight [/i] [B][color=crimson]I dont know, James. Democracy is not going to work in the long run either, not the form that the United States says it employs anyway. 'Majority Rule' doesnt really apply anymore, so its not 'democracy', or the dictionary defination of it.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] [color=#808080]Why doesn't "majority rule" apply anymore? And ultimately, how else are you going to operate a country? I don't see any realistic alternative to democracy. You really can't run a nation with a system of anarchy or something like that. A country needs at least somewhat centralized leadership in order to operate. You need institutions and organizations to operate public services. And in a democracy, the entire public has the ability to choose which leaders they want to represent them in those areas. Are you going to push for a system that gives the minority of voters control over the nation? I mean, really, you're not going to find a way of pleasing everyone. You simply can't. Everybody disagrees on how to run things - everybody has a different view. So, you either allow people to choose via a democratic process or you dictate your policy to everybody, regardless of how they feel (ie: a dictatorship). So, if you are an advocate for allowing people to express themselves (their political views and their solutions to problems), surely you have to support democracy. Of course, you might be jaded about the way democracy is handled in the United States or any other country. But once again, if you were on the other side of the fence (ie: Iran, where the "democracy" is nothing but thinly veiled dictatorship), you might think differently about the way the United States handles democracy. At least in your country, if you dislike the public representatives, you can pursue your own career in public life. I mean, democracy isn't perfect (as I said, not everyone always gets heard), but I can't think of a better way of operating a country and being as fair as possible.[/color]

[color=#808080]You're right, klinanime. Capitalism isn't a form of Government; it's a form of economy. Communism and socialism are essentially one in the same - I would only say that the major distinction between the two is that one is a more harsh version of the other. I think someone actually mentioned why Communism doesn't work. And actually, there's a really good quote from a book called "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich", a man who lived in a re-education camp in Soviet Russia. He coined the term "From a distance, communism is like a diamond. But up close, it is a teardrop". I may not have gotten that exactly right, but that's basically what he said. And it's [i]very[/i] true. Communism simply can't work, because it's incredibly impractical. The fact is, you [i]need[/i] large companies and entrepreneurial spirit to maintain a standard of living for all citizens. If you take away the free right to private ownership and personal wealth, you are [i]also[/i] hurting your own Government's ability to provide welfare services to those who are less fortunate in society.[/color] [quote][i]Originally posted by Chaos:[/i][b] We believe in free enterprise, yet we look down on the "big corporations" when they take over the underdog. Socialism was a very good idea, though, in my opinion. Communism was all right, but it put too much pressure on the people. Facism was ideal for a certain population, but radical ideas from the outside that clash with the country's feelings. K4rl M4rx 0wnz j00. [/b][/quote] [color=#808080]Well, people who look down on corporations in general are, in my opinion, people who generally don't believe in free enterprise. You can't believe in free enterprise and personal ownership if you also disapprove of large business. It's too contradictory to work, I think. Communism was really never all right, I'd say. If you look back at Communist nations, you'll find that most of them either imploded or remain countries with massive social welfare problems and huge economic and civil rights issues (take China as an example of that). As standards improve, it is only natural for Communist nations to become Capitalist democracies. One day, China will be a Capitalist society. And it will also be a democracy. Why? Because that combination of national management [i]works[/i]. Countries that employed such philosophies successfully are now among the world's richest, with higher living standards than their Communist counterparts. So it's a natural evolution from worse to better, in a sense. As far as Facism goes...no, I wouldn't say that it was ideal for any population. Look at Facism in Germany pre and during WWII. It was never ideal - it was crushing. It was painful. And it was suppressive. The "Marx" brand of facism was something that several world leaders tried to employ, including Stalin. But did it ever work? No. You could argue that these leaders were all unstable men and that no system would have worked under their leadership anyway. But I think that would be a pretty ridiculous argument, because facism by its very nature is something that is not adopted by completely free nations. It's mostly a case of one person dictating policy to many others (which, of course, is also the complete opposite to the anarchy scenario that you might endorse). So yeah, you can't be for both, because they're polar opposites, if that makes sense. I think basically, as I said earlier...it's really easy to endorse facism, communism and the like. It's easy when you're in a free nation. But I feel that such opinions would change dramatically if you were placed in a nation that surpresses the free speech and civil rights that you currently enjoy. Maybe it's a geener pastures thing though; maybe we are never really happy or appreciative of what we have until we lose it. I think there's an element of truth in that.[/color]

[color=#808080]Nah, that's the N-Gage. This is the PlayStation Pocket or whatever it's called. I'd say that the N-Gage and PSP will be direct competitors. The GBA will slip under both of their radars and continue to lead the market. I think Sony's first goal will be to blow the N-Gage out of the water. If it can do that (presuming the N-Gage is accepted by the market), then I think Sony can form a nice little high-end niche in the handheld gaming market.[/color]