Ginger_Warrior

It ends up happening in several threads. Like the "Professor finds that religious people are less intelligent..." topic in which multiple bashes were made, and no action was taken. Keep in mind this is not bashing on the religion, it was comments such as "only morons believe in religion" or similar items of that nature. It's also hard to call such conversations a "debate" because it's rare that an open mind is kept. There is no debate, it's just ignoring the other party and stating your opinion or the opinion of someone else without even considering or entertaining the other party. I don't think I'd support such a thread. Merely stating someone's facts doesn't provide much in the way of discussion, therefore, it should be locked before flamewars begin. Whilst we're here, I also want a rule that states we can't discuss socialism. Then I can't get called for being a socialist. I also want a rule that says we can't discuss clothes, people get just get ridiculed for wearing them. Music? Another source of personal insults there. Hell, let's not even discuss our favourite colours - those pink fans might get a whole torrent of abuse. Seriously, if you think religious people are the only ones targeted in the OT forum, you need to open your eyes a little bit more. And when you have, maybe you'll realise clamping down on every thing that causes personal insults to be thrown around means OT would be left with no topics at all.

Double elimination basically means you have to be defeated in two matches in order to fall out of the tournament. This includes the final - it's just repeated again so both players have had two bites of the cherry, if needed. Best out of three is fairly self-explanatory. It means a maximum of three games can be played, in other words, two winning rounds means a mathematical victory. Counter-picking is more complex. Simply, the loser from the previous round always gets to pick the next stage, and the winner almost always cannot change their character. Stage counterpicking is the process of choosing a stage which deliberately gives a disadvantage to the opponent, or an advantage to you. Example: If a Snake won the previous round, then the loser would probably choose Marth on Yoshi's Story, since the stage is small and this lessens Snake's ability to "camp", while giving Marth's [bleep]ing abilities a boost because of the slope at the end. Most tournaments now abide by Dave's Stupid Rule. The most common interpretation of this rule (although there are others, so check when you get there) is that you cannot choose a stage you have previously won in that match on. It's essentially designed to make the game more even for all characters. There are more complex versions of this principle. Some are just ridiculous, but most abide by that interpretation. Example: The first stage, picked by random draw, produces Battlefield. Player A wins the first round. Player A can no longer choose Battlefield for the rest of this match. A neutral stage is the stage chosen for the first round of a match. It is selected at random. For Brawl, there is no definitive list yet, but stages like FD, Battlefield, Smashville etc. are commonly regarded as neutral. A list is at the discretion of tournament organisers. Good luck \ and remember - no johns.

[/hide] Does it matter? As said, the differences between them are so minor in the scheme of things there really is no tangible difference. Unless you're saying McCain would have removed a bank's right to lend to whoever they want (i.e., not allow them to give mortgages to people who can't afford to repay them), the sub-prime mortgage collapse would have happened with or without him. Unless you're saying he believes in state intervention to oversee and prevent crises like this happening again, the economy would have gone into recession with or without him. Same goes for Obama. It seems daft you think McCain would have been any better in this situation when this was a systemic problem inside the financial sector - a sector he's repeatedly been uncomfortable with talking about state intervention with.

Which brings me back to my statement of the Hippocratic Oath needing a few revisions. The Oath was made by a doctor who believed the body existed on a balance of Four Humours. It's honestly not synonymous with the subject of Modern Medicine, and was made in a time where exploitation was almost a fact of life. Nowadays, we know the difference between right and wrong. We have insurance; contracts; a national code of law. Without boring you to death with details, the Oath is redundant and should not really appear in the context of this debate. If you think a homicidal doctor will honestly stop before he's about to do the deed and go, "Oh no, I swore to Hippocrates I wouldn't <3" you're deeply mistaken. I'm in support of Euthanasia. I think it boils down to the principle that if a human is capable of independent, rational thought then they should have the ability to do whatever they want to their own body, so long as they are affecting no one else. That said, if I succeed in becoming one, I think most doctors would have personal difficulty committing themselves to ending someone else's life. If they had no qualms at all, I'd probably be concerned for their suitability for that job.

Remember, "upper class" and "middle class" have different socio-economic meanings on either side of the Atlantic. Business owners here are the middle class. Living in a house worth six digits doesn't make you middle class. If people think it does, maybe that's why we are in this mess in terms of the housing market crashing.

It doesn't help when Snake has such a disjointed hitbox. Makes it harder to get used to compared to other characters. I was pulling boomerangs out when I shouldn't have done because my spacing was out of whack. But I won't john. If I want to compete, I should just get used to it. You're right about the lagless moves. I panic and button-bash. That means I often get the timing completely wrong and end up hitting commands I don't actually want. I need to stop doing it. I'm playing too impulsively rather than trying to out-manoeuvre the opponent (much like how I go about real life :lol:). It's so damn frustrating. :x You're good, as always, though.

It's about time we had a rematch. I don't want you to remember me for how I played during my first match. ;) If you get online in time, I'll play ya.

Yes but the fact of the matter is this - he doesn't. Why? Because he doesn't need to tap into that sort of emotion to get people to the polling booths (or whatever they are in America, point still stands). So I suppose by saying that I've answered my own question. The reason people hate Obama is because there is a deep-rooted fear in America of change. Although, that said, I have never seen a group of people react that passionately towards a single stimulus before.

Did he just wanna be on Soccer A.M.? There's a taxi calling for him... tQJtViqs1Bo

[/hide] Uhh.... Ok... You're correct with the War against Germany, but wrong about the Communistic Bolsheviks. America's economy revived, not because of the New Deal, or because of the Bolsheviks. It revived because with the War, all the sudden a surge of work was needed, to go to factories or work in the Army. In fact, so much work was needed, that the Bracero program started, bringin in Mexicans to work Agriculture. Then, when everyone came home fromt he war, they had checks to spend, lots of em. The War helped, just as it did across the world. But the American economy in particular was recovering before the war (well, actually, so were the Soviet and German economies but for totally different reasons). Don't forget, the economic troubles back then started in 1929. America joined the war officially in December 1941 after Pearl Harbor. Unless the economy was in a bad state for twelve years (it wasn't), the war was not the only thing that kick started the world economy again.

It's worrying. This is almost the same situation as the Great Depression. Previously, so-called 'experts' tried to claim it wasn't a repeat, because only the banks were failing, but now the other half of the equation is also hanging over - the stock market crash. We're not at crash stage yet, but we are very close. We've chucked the kitchen sink at it, and it still hasn't worked. Eventually, our leaders will have to come to the conclusion that we are entering a recession, quite possibly on the scale of the depression. Why is that so bad though? After all, capitalism has troughs as wells as peaks. It has to bleed capital periodically to function. As others have pointed out, the bubble has to burst eventually. Well, there is one major difference between now and the Depression - the lack of another economic system. In the Great Depression, there was free enterprise in the American and European markets, but there was also another working system in the world - the system made by the Bolsheviks in the then Soviet Union. This, along with the ongoing threat of War against the Nazis, revived industry and reversed the trend of recession into positive growth. Now no such situation exists, and it is difficult to see where this economic crisis, which started off only as a financial crisis, is going to stop, given there is now no major power in the world with a non-Capitalist system. The bottom of this pit is not in sight, and we are certainly not going to hit rock bottom in the next few weeks. There are other impacts too. Namely, the rise of political extremism. Extremist groups, such as the Nazis and the Bolsheviks, came into prominence during periods of extreme economic difficulty. History tells us there is a link between economic hardship and political extremism. The Bolsheviks rose to power during the First World War, after Russia's economic system, which was barely more than Feudalism, was proven to be an inadequate model to fight a sustained war in the new modern arena. The Nazis rose to power following the Depression, as well as the impact of the Treaty of Versailles on the German real economy. When people are desperate for a solution, they are more likely to ignore the background beliefs of a radical party, in the belief they are the way forward. The seeds of extremism are already sown, and they are shooting. Austria recently held its legislative elections, in which the Austrian Freedom Party, the extreme right, made massive gains. They are now just a grasp away from power. Then there is also the issue of America's influence over the rest of the world. The election between a black man and a Vietnam vet for the keys to the White House seems meaningless when there is a greater ideological battle in the world. After all, there is no real difference between either of them - both basically support the principles of a free market. If my fears in the second paragraph are true, then the American-born idea of global capitalism has been proven to be a toxic foreign export from the US. Russia has already closed its stock markets in anticipation that confidence in the markets will not improve in near times to come. This is not the collapse of Capitalism, even if Marxists such as myself wish it were, but there is little chance of India or China, the two upcoming rulers of the 21st Century and the latter being a 'former communist state', greeting the laissez-faire model with open arms for very long after this. If you're a moderate, free market-loving American, life doesn't look good for the next year or two.

Umm, Obama does that a lot, actually, but the media is liberal, and so people in other countries, are 90% Democrat, only the knowledgeable and logical people vote Republican. You're epitomising that exact feeling I'm talking about. If any criticism comes onto the Republicans, you reflect onto the Democrats and say "They're the same, so what?". Yet strangely, you go further to suggest that, despite being the same, only sensible people vote for your way of thinking, and degrade all else to the depths of stupidity. That's not democracy. It's an ill-thought out fish slapping contest. One thing, is on a scale for 1-10, most Democrats are a 4, Obama is a 12. He's is SO liberal, people hate him. And what is this logic you're talking of? Obama hasn't shown any so far. He's a great politician, as in he knows what to say to get people to like him, certain people in the past, not to name names. But really, he's got awful ideas, and if you look at it LOGICALLY, you'll see his ideas aren't that good. Well, firstly, if you're talking about liberalism on a global scale, the Democrats are about 3, and Obama's about 4. The Conservative party in the UK holds policies that would be regarded socialism in the US, and the Tories are by no means a liberal party. The Democratic Party really isn't as pseudo-socialist as you would like to make out. The "logic" I'm referring to is that of Palin's supporters. That scientists across the world regard polar bears as endangered, but they place Palin's judgement above all those trained scientists. That pretty much everyone now accepts global warming is a man-made problem, but her supporters still believe it is the cause of divine intervention. That they talk about how she fought against corruption as though it's something they care passionately about, but turn a blind eye when a report implies Palin herself was involved in corruption. Now, even if you remove Palin from the picture, her supporters seem to use inconceivably flawed logic in order to make their personal judgements. However, I don't believe that many people can be that misinformed. There must be another factor, something greater, in explaining why they feel the why they do than just simply blaming it on illogic and pinning them down as nutjobs. I'm trying to look at the big picture here, rather than its small corner of this election. Good grief. I can honestly picture people like you reading Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. And then realize that Obama got his whole platform from that. Well, maybe not to that extreme, but pretty close. Have you ever actually read the Communist Manifesto? Its ending line calls for the working classes of the world to unite against their bourgeois oppressors. Obama supports the middle classes, albeit alongside the working classes too. To say he bases his economic policies on Marxism is baffling to say the least.

The only thing that has surprised me on US politics in the past two years (since Obama and Hillary both stated their intentions to run for presidency) is the level of anger against the Democrats in some parts of central America. A video was posted on the other topic about Palin showing her supporters going into a "riot", but it seems as though rallies like that aren't too rare. What is it about Obama specifically that provokes such a huge sense of hostility in these people? It's not good enough to dismiss them as I usually would - as irrational lunatics. The education system in America cannot surely be so bad that that many people seemingly fail to understand logic. There must be a reason for that anger. I really am interested in knowing what crawls up their bill so much. Aside from the generic "I don't think he's ready to be Commander-in-Chief" stuff, nothing I have heard from them makes a rational explanation for what is clearly such a deep-rooted feeling. Is it just closet racism; is it a blacklash because of the War on Terror or the Cold War; hatred against liberal ideology in general; or something else? Furthermore, why is this feeling only specific to these areas, and not America as a whole? You can honestly picture these people sitting down on Conservapedia and nodding at every word it says.

That is a liberal magazine -.-. He didn't say it wasn't.

1:18 On the Daily, Weekly and Monthly top 10. How satisfying. \

Imbalanced?

Well I tell you what, this image on the front cover way back on January 2007 when Obama launched his campaign in Illinois isn't particularly flattering either (how time flies ): [hide=][/hide] Makes him look well sly, a bit Machiavellian.

Me neither. Unless that drug use starts to affect the people around them in a negative way. I still think it's lazy and a bit short-sighted to say "Ecstasy is safer than alcohol" though. For two reasons: 1) That conclusion only applies for physical harm dealt by the drug 2) It depends on the user. If I go out, have alcohol, and don't get drunk, I'm not harming myself because my liver can deal with it. If I go out and get bladdered, there is a problem with my health. It depends on the person taking it, and how they are taking it.

Firstly, don't worry about the whole "that far" thing. It's not actually that strange to have not gone that far by the age of 18. The time will come when you feel totally secure with it, and that's important. Anything less than that just isn't worth going for. As for the situation, the one thing that's blaring out to me here is "He's 18, and his mate is trying to hook up with every girl he fancies". Doesn't that strike you as just a tiny bit immature on your mate's part? I mean seriously, I wouldn't tolerate someone like that. I'd tell them where to get lost if they're gonna be that irresponsible about the personal information I tell them about my feelings. So really, in regards to your mate, if he's gonna be anal, it's a free game. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours and that jazz. If you have feelings for this girl and you things to run smoothly, then tell her how you feel. She might reject you, she might like you too, but you've been honest with her and she'll respect you for that. If she doesn't, was she really that worth having as a friend anyway? No. Not telling her isn't an option though. You can try and deny those feelings exist, but that doesn't mean they're gone and there'll always be that pretense around her. Be honest, tell her how you feel. It's not about confidence, that's not what you've come here for. That's what I'd do anyway.

As Laterus pointed out in one such topic, to debate religion is not wrong. It frustrates me when a person in an argument turns round and says "you can't attack my opinion because it's religion". Religion isn't something that's sacrosanct to everyone. Remove the theological arguments, and all religion is is a system of common values and beliefs between a group of people. In that sense, it is an ideology, just as much as capitalism, socialism, democracy, autocracy, fascism (etc.) are. It is not wrong to question someone's ideology. It is wrong to offend that person directly for believing in that ideology. In regards to religion, it's also difficult to determine what is and isn't a religion. Look at the world around you - Scientology springs to mind. Where does one draw a line at a "cult" and a "religion"? These are not answers moderators are meant to decide on, therefore, questioning someone's beliefs should be accepted, but personal attacks should not.

Is she saying magazines airbrush certain people to give them a more favourable image? Man... I never knew that before. The pro-Palin (sorry, pro-only woman candidate) camp just get more and more amusing everyday.

If it was as credible as you make it, it would be on something other than Freewebs.

He's spoken to one domestic bomber years ago. There's no evidence to suggest he has any current affiliation, and there's certainly no evidence to suggest he himself was involved in terrorism, or even supported it. You really are clutching at straws for a reason to discredit him, instead of talking about what elections are meant to be about - issues. Frankly, it's not working. Obama's dominating the polls. Nothing, it was in a list... There's flip-flopping, and there's using blatant contradictions to get yourself elected. You may argue Obama isn't fit for presidency because he's a "terrorist", I'm sure Palin, who's just one heartbeat away from Presidency herself if they get elected, isn't fit on the basis she's a clear liar. The democracy which is so fundamental to America demands integrity. She's already shown she won't give it. Where is this research then? There is a clear correlation between the IR and increases in the Earth's temperature, and I'm talking outside of cyclical weather patterns too. In fact, we can even explain it scientifically. The causation of global warming really is only a debate amongst those who make it one just to be awkward. It's also noticeable these people are mostly religious. Whodafunkit? I opposed the Iraq war. Not just now, after seeing the chaos, but I did at the time. I personally find it shameful that a Labour government would go to war unnecessarily, and not just that, but lie to the public in order to gain support for it. Several pupils at my school walked out of lessons to campaign against the war. You're really leaping into the unknown if you believe I, as a Brit, supported military action in Iraq. As for the Boer war, again, not something I'm proud of. Although I don't actually recall any incidents of slavery in the Boer Wars, the situation in South Africa was dictated by those Wars. In fact, the way we built our Empire and kept a hold of it was disgusting. It was wholly unacceptable. Our past actions are exactly why we should be promoting equal race opportunities, to stem and reverse the racist attitudes that evolved through our stance towards Africa over the 18th to 20th centuries. What has this got to do with Obama anyway, or was it just an attempt to discredit any British person who happens to support Obama? If you think I support every action my country has ever made, you're wrong. Very wrong. Such nationalism has been proven to be foolish.

In SSBB, we have griefers, but in all honesty it's quite fun. Most of them play and just taunt all match. If someone disrupts the taunt party by fighting (crashing), everyone gangs up on them. The challenge is then to crash a taunt party, and win a 2 minute point match three times in a row with everyone else against you. That's one of the 50 player-made Basic Brawl challenges. There's another kind though. They're more annoying. A point in SSBB is awarded to the last person to hit the KO'd player, even if the player self-destructs. So you get some idiots who deliberately get hit once, then SD to rig the game. They annoy me so much. (At this point, I'd like to point out the correct term should be "grievers" :P )

*Psst* Make it a rule, please! :D *Psst* Why bother debating at all if we're not allowed to give negative opinions? Strikes me as a very stupid rule. All I know about Scientology is that the French are about <-> this close to banning it completely. It's recognised as an "absolute sect" there, not a religion.