Laura

I don't remember any of my dreams. I probably haven't had one that I've remembered in years.

I usually add my own thought when quoting, but this was said perfectly.

cars arent 100% safe, we still allow people to drive them. The main point is noone(excluding maybe a true psychopath) has ever gone "dude I totally have a gun its telling me to kill you", any gun crime would have been commited with a knife or heavy rock or whatever if the guns were illegal. Yeah, but I'm sure I'd be much more inclined to kill you with a gun over a rock. As in, I'm not going to struggle with you (using a rock) only to perish myself. In all likelihood, if I never had access to a gun, I would never commit a crime; my weak frame makes me ill suited to do so. But a gun, well, that just changes everything.

:P It's ok, I still love you (platonically) You know I love these kinds of discussions. It truly is. I absolutely love these kinds of discussions. :P Rarely do I find posts that make me challenge my own ideas as well as the ideas and thoughts of those around me. It's more on these touchy subjects, I suppose, such as "Is God Real," and this one of course.

Same here.

I fixed the problem when I updated Java. I know you can't open it, to which I have little insight, but I do know the fix for the initial problem.

Mine went deaf as well.

Nice hairstyle! And, really small camera. Lol. :P

You guys are forgetting the probable possibility of an area for plant growth vs. animal growth. Most farm animals now rely on grass as their main source of food. Yet, you cannot always grow demanded vegetation in these areas; it would be unsuitable. If you're going to convert billions of people to vegetarianism, the land needed isn't going to be made in urban, suburban, or even rural communities. At least, not the majority. No, the area used would be ill suited area converted by humans to process these good. You say that I'm pointing out the obvious, yet you seem to be clumsily stumbling over the obvious yourself. Though I am unsure as to why this is a point. We can't convert any number of people to change their lifestyle to suit a "better" reform. At least, not this day in age. People. I'm sorry you feel that way. I did convey my points in such a manner that others could take offense or feel that I am offensive. If you do indeed feel this way about me, I'm sorry, I meant no person attacks nor am I questioning anyones intelligence.

I tried chinning before. Extremely fast charm rate, but I died extremely fast. Also tried barraging. But, I do think that there is a way.

I plead you to expand. Let's see, plants require nutrients, water, sunlight, and land. My main argument here is exponential growth. Need I link the two together?

The latest on international trade flows: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/interna ... elease.htm The US has been running a trade deficit for a couple of decades now, since the Regan era. Overall, Bush hasn't really done much noteworthy. People make him out to have done worse than he has, but I think in the end he's just mediocre. Wow, this thread's was dragged off-topic fast. But it doesn't require a drastic reform, which is the main problem. Hell, for all we know, the treasury is just printing more money comparable to that deficit. Funny you should mention it. I was looking at the news last night, and there was an article about Obama hitting his head on his way into his plane. Yeah.

Surely, you aren't suggesting our imports and exports are equal? What has Bush done? From a literal standpoint, it's impossible. But they aren't drastically in need for change. No Child Left Behind Prevented another terrorist strike, however relative the term "prevent" is. Income tax reforms Increased defensive research Health, or medicare reforms I can go on, if needed. Sorry, should have worded better. I was more curious to what you thought were his highpoints. No Child Left Behind didn't really work (it had good intentions, but played out badly) and "preventing" a terrorist strike is questionable. The one thing I didn't immediately recognize though were the income tax reforms. What were the specifics on that? Wait, is the bolded statement refering to imports and exports? Yes. All of those, I would have to say, are the high points. Though not many of them actually affected me. Oh, and increase military salaries. The GI bill was probably highlight, since I can use my fathers military status to pay for college. Yeah, so you're telling me that 78% of the country must be Democrats, Liberals, or uneducated morons that stare at the television all day. Hmm. The same people that can elect the President aren't taken seriously when they judge him? It's not a "Bush-Bashing Trend". The guy was a horrible President. End of story. Stop putting words in my mouth, I said people read and watch the news. He was portrayed as a horrible president. End of story.

Bush was the worst public speaker I have ever witnessed, he got us into at least one unjustified war in Iraq (possibly two if you want to believe the 9/11 conspiracies, but for the sake of sanity, Afghanistan was justified), increased governmental spending, sent our country into trillions of dollars worth of debt, and the list goes on. What exactly did he "Get Done"?, because when only 22% of the American public believes you're doing a good job, you know something is wrong. Not necessarily. That just means that 78% of people THINK you're doing something wrong. Admittedly, they're probably right, and that's democracy for ya, but they could be wrong. That's speculation! 'cause you hate me. But I love you. For once, I do actually agree with that. What do Americans probably watch/read most? The news, perhaps?

Surely, you aren't suggesting our imports and exports are equal? What has Bush done? From a literal standpoint, it's impossible. But they aren't drastically in need for change. No Child Left Behind Prevented another terrorist strike, however relative the term "prevent" is. Income tax reforms Increased defensive research Health, or medicare reforms I can go on, if needed.

In 15 years we'll see how Bush basically ruled the country by Executive Fiat. A President doesn't need Congress to pass an Executive order. He isn't helpless to the powers of Congress like you portray him, or any other President for that matter. Just wait awhile for it all to come spilling out. I'm not saying he's useless. What I am saying is that at the present, people portray him as a foolish and "dumb" president. Yet in 15 years, we'll all see him as a president who actually got things done.

All I see are opinions. But, do you know anything about an economy? We don't need to pay off. In terms of debt, our imports:exports is on par, and there's little reason to cut funding just because of that. Why is everyone hating Bush? Do you actually look at the things he's done? No, of course not, it's all media propaganda. Which, might I add, thrives on the fears, failures, and tragedies of the world. If you're going to point the finger, point it at congress. All the president is, in figurative terms, is the spokesperson for the branches. Obama is the president amidst an economic turmoil (as some would consider it) and you're just looking at the first few weeks? And before anyone gives me any liberal, communist, or any other party crap, I don't lay my basis on parties.

Yes. And eh, it would be hard clicking everywhere. I could buy a 1080p projector...

I'm already playing on 1080p. :| On a 46 inch TV through a PC? No, on a 21.5" monitor. I'm already playing on 1080p. :| Is it any good for high def? I don't really notice any difference between it and other resolutions. I can hook up my second 20" monitor, and get 41.5" of RSHD as well.

I'm already playing on 1080p. :|

Push harder.

12 years, and the kid is 9. So you don't even know the kid? Yup, the Aunt it just convinced that the world revolves around her [and her son]. My take, anyways.

We aren't degrading ourself, not by any means. Morally, yes, we're obligated to save or at least give effort to save those in less fortunate situations. But if you look back at survival instincts it was just whoever could steal the most food. Why should this be any different? No country is going to sell off its food and resources to another, when a large percentage of its own are starving. We see this as a problem with capitalism, or rather, the limits of it. Other countries are only going to survive off of other countries so long as the commerce never stops. In this case, it's the fight for both your future generation's life, and the species as a whole. And, companies horde resources because it drives the prices up. Again, a conflict with the majority of the world's economic standpoints. You can't make billions of people become vegetarians. And if you did, even more resource and economic deprivations would arise. It doesn't matter how much the other guys have, it about how much you have. In this case, 3rd world countries have very little, so they can only support a little. But as we see, those countries doubling rates are far to low, yet continue fall lower. It all depends, I guess, if you think that the few should live in luxury, or the large to live in poverty. If you value human morals as much as you say you do (without reference to Wongtong or anyone else), then you should look at the other side of the coin.

Noes, Toast. Come back! :cry:

I've been talking to myself all day about what I should say to Dell when they call again. Think I could add psychological problems to my lawsuit against them?