Ginger_Warrior

Goodbye 75% of potential market.

For the matter I did read it. It's total rubbish. You obviously cannot understand plain and simple English: You can argue that traditional marriage =/= historical marriage all you like, it doesn't mean you're right in saying so. While the Church accepts tens of thousands for a luxurious wedding in a picturesque venue in the middle of Cornwall I simple cannot take the "traditional" argument seriously. Even if I did, I still have no idea what relevance it has to the issue of homosexuality.

I exist. What I exist in does not matter. I have a perception of where I exist, I exist for myself, and that's good enough to keep me occupied for the 80 or so years I will exist. The deeper philosophical interpretations behind our existence do not bother me.

And homosexual marriage does? Following the definition of a traditional marriage given on the last page, yes. OK, we'll follow the definition of a traditional marriage. When I get married, which will now be a requirement for decent social recognition, I expect my washing done folded in my wooden drawer, and my food cooked when I get home. I expect my wife to care of the kids, sweep up around the house, grow the crops while I go out and work. In her spare time, I expect her to socialise with other women and tell them how great I am, and how I deserve greater recognition. Any question of her getting a career or seeing another man at all is a complete no-no; her place is in the house with me, breeding, and sowing my torn up clothes together again. Seriously, please just grow up.

Exactly. As SSBB goes when it comes to competition, it isn't actually that complicated, no matter what those at the top of the Smash community might say. They like to get all technical and mask that fact that you can easily get by in this game only using two characters (and with MK, some might argue only one character). I don't know of any competitive sport that two-dimensional. That's why this game's still only giving $5K prizes, and hardly any professionals are sponsored by big companies.

Employment, interest rates, oil prices, housing prices, wage rates, military spending, trade balances... The economy is something which affects everyone, and whoever's in the White House has an influence over that, so there really is no reason to be totally uninterested in US politics, even if you don't live in the US. Then you have all the other reasons why someone would be interested as well. If you choose to not to vote, that's fine. I couldn't vote anyway, so it's not like I personally could have had any bearing over this election, except perhaps try to persuade all two dozen voters in the north-west of England who could vote to vote Obama. Just don't [bleep] later when a candidate gets in who completely messes you up when you had the chance to make your voice heard.

I think there's a difference between forcing children into a certain political spectrum, and simply influencing them. The fact is, it's not like they'd been frog-marched down to the nearest HQ and told to do this for the Obama campaign, or told to hold an Obama sign and smile for the cameras. They did come in at their own free will, and if they'd have been a Republican, good for them too. At the end of the day, these children are the future. They're the ones who will have to face the challenges left for them. They're the ones who will vote in ten years time. If they're getting involved in politics at such a young age and fighting for what they believe in by trying to make a difference, I think that has to be credited. I can't speak for Australia, but certainly in the UK I don't know of many under-18s who canvass for any of the three major political parties near to an election. In fact, I don't know any who are even members of a trade union or a political party. EDIT: Just read Sumpta's closing paragraph. Spot on. =D>

Oh God, I'm the same. When I'm playing a strategy game like Advance Wars which requires hard thinking I just chew and chew. I snapped a stylus once.

Can I ask an honest question, and I'm not trying to take the Michael out of you, I'm genuinely making a point: Have you ever felt this way about someone before? If this is the first person you've ever loved in that special way, how do you know what you're feeling is altruistic? You've got no feeling to compare it against. What if you're mistaking trust for something completely different? That's why 15 year olds need to go out with other 15 year olds, before they throw their lot in with someone older who can use that confusion to manipulate them. If you seriously want my advice, stop this and go out with someone your own age. Be 15 and just have fun in life, like you're meant to at that age. You'll be much happier for it in the long run, I guarantee you.

You're half right there, although the SBR would beg to disagree. I can't imagine Ken ever turning up to a SSBM tournament like a noble crusader playing as Yoshi, winning a few matches through skill, and losing against a better character just to improve Yoshi's tier list ranking. He'd come as Falco and win. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Can't you see though that banning things like abortion is forcing morality on others? I don't have a problem with abortions before the third trimester, because there is no pain involved before that point. I just don't see why others who feel the way I do on abortion (and there are many) should be told our morals are effectively wrong because others perceive it as murder.

Yes it exactly is. What is the point in visiting a country if it doesn't appeal to you? I'd like to see Siberia, but I wouldn't go to Russia really for anything else. Can you tell me what exactly there is to do in Kenya, and why so many people fly out to see it every year? Surely if Kenya gained loads of tourism despite having no real landmarks, so would Russia, and it does. There's plenty of things to do in Russia. Most of it is wasteland but the area around St. Petersburg and Moscow is worth visiting. If you truly want to understand Russian and Soviet history, go to those cities. Far from the popular perception that most people despise Lenin for the fact he was a communist, you might actually realise a lot of Russians recognise Lenin for moving them away from the oppression of Tsardom. You might also learn from that why Russians feel comfortable with having a fairly one-sided democratic process. Russia stands on the faultline of ideological politics. If you can't see anything worth seeing from that, that's really your problem, not theirs.

In your opinion. There is a massive problem with highlighting morality as only being one-dimensional. Let's take two issues: Abortion - you perceive it as murder. I perceive it a freedom of choice for woman to dictate what happens to their own body. Two views on the same issue. Capital punishment - you perceive it was justified because the punishment is equal to the crime, the ultimate acceptance, if you will. I perceive is an unneeded death, and that killing any born human is wrong. Two views on the same issue. That's your problem in defending or attacking something only on "moral" grounds, and it's also the problem with proclaiming to be the defender of certain morals. No matter how convinced you are that your perception of morals is the correct one, I am also equally as resolute in mine, and moreover, we both have the right to hold those opinions. Morality is subjective, therefore unless there is a clear consensus (such as with murder, theft etc.), you cannot apply a moral onto an entire populace. Those morals are not applicable to everyone, and indeed, we go on to a greater issue - is it right to force morals onto people even if they don't happen to believe in those morals? Surely the answer to that question, in the country which prides itself on freedom, is 'no'.

a) I find it difficult to believe most poor people don't pay income taxes. B) Everyone pays taxes, not just the rich, so of course the poor are paying for it. Everytime they put fuel in their car, pay their bills, do the shopping, earn a wage, drive on the road, they're paying tax. Saying only the rich pay taxes in just ridiculous. c) When you say 70%, are you actually talking about taxing the individuals in that 5%, or are you talking some sort of excess profits tax on big business?

That's just an ignorant, arrogant, and offensive statement. I am fairly damn sure most people who voted for McCain did not do it based on your criteria there. Given all the digs Europe gets for being "socialist" from some Americans I think it's fair I equally criticise some aspects of American society. If that makes me arrogant, so be it. Where did I say most people who voted for McCain fitted that criteria? I'm well aware Obama did not win a landslide so many people must have voted McCain on policy. I'm merely stating there are a handful of people in America who are like that, and unless you're trying to convince me the selection of Sarah Palin brought the rank and file of the Republican party in-line (which it didn't for anything longer than four days after the GOP convention) I stand by my statement. There are people quite convinced that Obama is either one or more of those adjectives I listed, despite none of them being true to any rational thinker besides the fact he's black. In no other country in the world would Bush have been elected on such a far-right interventionist agenda, twice, and it's partly thanks to those people. In any case, the main point of my post still holds true - America will never be a leftist country. This isn't even the most 'left-wing' America's ever been. Obama is still to the right of Johnson, and even Johnson supported Vietnam.

I think you have to be careful when saying "America" will become more left or more right. What this election shows is there is one half of America that embraces change, tolerance and liberalism, and another half of America that would sooner go to Hell than see an "Arab Muslim black pseudo-Socialist" man elected President of the US. While these folks are still around, there's no hope of America as a whole ever becoming a leftist country, especially as Europe is currently moving right-wards.

I hear turning glucose into ethanol is becoming a lucrative trade in America now. The BBC even went so far to say that McCain lost in (I think) Indiana last night because he rejects the idea.

You don't really have any idea of how your own democratic system works, do you? The popular vote means nothing. Even if it did, Obama won it by a good 5% (which sounds small, but is actually massive in a two-party election), so it's not like he needed more while the national polls were putting him 7%, 8%, and even some double figures ahead.

It runs counter to the American dream. The ideology that anybody can come to America and make a living for themselves. That said, how the Republicans can honestly sit there and call Obama a socialist when it was their own President who used government spending to buy up $700 billion's worth of bad assets is beyond me. That was the finest example of socialism going, except that only favoured the rich while the poor has to now pay for it.

I dunno why people even bother talking about that law. If both people consent to having sex and it's not a blatant case of paedophilia the police hardly ever take action. Even if they did, it's not like they'll storm in half way through the act and arrest the guy. People have sex, whether the law likes it or not. The trick is getting young people to think about sex responsibly while they've still got hormones flying all over the place. ;)

Obama is so far away from Socialism it's not funny.

Just seeing what it means to some of those people in that all-black college, given that some of them were born into a time where to cast a vote as a black man as to effectively surrender your own life. It's truly heart-warming. Not even MLK could surely have imagined this.

It's been worth staying up for.

Don't feed the troll.

195 v 76 Just out of interest, who's staying up all night for this? I may as well, it's half 2. :lol: