i_love_burritos

It is my personal opinion that everyone west of India and east of Greece, should not be allowed nuclear weapons nor given the knowledge of how to manufacture them. I'll add more later. :P

I wouldn't have watched this if not for the Discovery Channel stamp. Either that, or Discovery Channel is running out of ideas. They are however, running out of credibility. I treat this with suspicion.

Yeah. I am too. Doesn't mean that they're not worthwhile discussing. I believe the last one was about some girl who got frisked.

I wouldnt consider that scary; its very weird but nothing about it is scary. House of Leaves is like this, too; very weird, but at the same time horrifying. Especially if you wake up in the middle of the night and go all paranoid because the light is on. It can sare you with its strangeness. Yes. House of Leaves I love you Lenin. You are possibly the only person I know that has read and enjoyed this book. I reccomend It, by Stephen King. Helluva' long read but well-worth it.

Seinfeld was never classic. Old yes. "Classic" - no. And you're a 14 year old - if I remember correctly. Unless you're watching old NBC re-runs. PINGU !!!!!!! That was the bread and butter of my childhood. Also going to be my next signature.

Hugging looks so damn stupid to me. Unless it's either, and/or a) It's heartfelt B) Between good friends c) When you have little control over what you are doing

Good god. 8th grade graduation ? What the hell is the world coming to. Just another way to acknowlegde and "celebrate" mediocrity. It's just another goddamned year.

Yeah, personally I find hugging to be very superficial unless it's between someone you've known for a long time. Or just know them well. And the no touching thing is just [bleep]ed up. - In the groin area, I understand, but really ? Damn teenagers - why'd you have to be so sensitive. However hugging random girls you don't know. I approve of that type of hugging.

Sorry man, I can't agree with that. It's not earned. You can't help but be here, your parents felt like having you, by accident or not. You could of ended it at any point, but due to morals of yourself and others around you, you don't. Truly you're forced to live a life. Unless you want knowing you hurt people by hurting yourself or not knowing what's ahead (Which gets to religion, which I'd rather not discuss). To some extent that is true. We all came out of someone's vagina at one point. And at that time you have no control whatsoever - of anything really. In saying it is earned, I feel that people who waste their lives do not "deserve to live". When you say you are forced to live life, that is what I dislike. Why can't we simply exist without purpose. Without attachment to anyone or anything ?

A song. Thought so. I thought that Zierro was saying that the TIF Lateralus said - something.

I know. But I was just thinking. To me life is not a gift. It is not simply given - it is earned. It is a privilege.

Lateralus by Tool ? What's that ?

Maybe I'm not as tasteful as you, but I found it [bleep]ing hilarious. Hilarious.

Implied humor. ;)

[hide=Long Post]Lately I've felt different about everything. I can't really explain it but I've been thinking. If you automatically assume I'm depressed, please reconsider. On to my post. Every breathing minute of every day people die of disease, poverty, and countless other things. The luxury of hope is destroyed and more oftenly denied to everyone. Why do things happen the way they do ? Does anyone really care past their own lives ? Past their insecurities and failures - or in some rare cases - their success ? What about the people who have recently, to politely put it, "lost someone", memory does not persist and those who are forgotten remain forgotten. Is there any intrinisic value in life ? To be gained or learned ? Or is it just to wait it out untill death ? Is it like this for every human ? Is this all there is ? At maximum 10,000 years of "intelligent" human existence is this, as a race, all we have produced ? Great writers and thinkers that with such lucidty and profoundity expressed their ideas and only a few handful have comprehended them ? Why do we have this lust for knowlegde ? What will it account for when it comes to weighing the scales ? Can anyone say anything honestly anymore ? Why do people do the things they do ? For the love of it ? Who remembers the most recent disaster ? Who at all cares for anyone else in this world ? In the 14 billion years that "this" has been here, and the 4 that the Earth has been here, all it has done has churned out an unending array of stars and cosmic bodies - and such beauty is lost upon us who have neither the time nor the will to think or to love or to remember. Does this pursuit for normality mean anything ? Death - unavoidable and fleeting, after I die and then you - will our loss mean anything to the others around us ? For those who did not have a chance or were unwilling - for anything really, do you think it would have made a difference ? To end ignorance, suffering and listlessness ? Does anyone wonder what could be, might be or will be ? Is there anything more ? Does anything matter ? Please note : This was an open ended question and series of thoughts that I had been mulling over. No need for you to post if you dont want to. I just wanted to get this out and find some answers.[/hide] TLDR : Why does [cabbage] happen and is that [cabbage] all there is. Note: Not trying to illicit a pseudointellectual response from you guys, just wanted to know your opinions.

That was only speculation. It wasn't in the plan at all. On some trials it was shown to do so. You may also be right. EDIT: I suck at spelling.

I see. Like a gimpy arm. Gotcha' ;)

I want in. Now.

:thumbup: Also, why is everyone suddenly started hating on celebrities ? I mean it's not their fault they're popular, in fact it's you shallow bastards that take notice of them in the first place. As much as I'd like to believe that - that's a crock of [cabbage]. For reasons I can't explain [because I'm horrible at explaining] - why everyone seems to think that, is a mystery to me. It's one of those "well known facts" that people repeat endlessly. Also, I've noticed that people seek to, either consciously or unconsciously, bring themselves "down" so that they can develop a complex. EDIT: Trying to make the [bleep]ing thumbs up work.

[bleep] me. It's goddamn winter here. But still our lowest in winter is probably your highest. Nice photos. How old are you ? Sounds like you've done so much already. Can you explain ?! :D

Incorrect wording. Unless. Unless in this context means, that A will only be carried out if B is fulfilled before hand. So to take care of the child she has to be stupid. No. It means that unless she is stupid, she can keep it. Meaning as long as she's not stupid, she can keep it. Argh. I see. [bleep]ing commas.

Incorrect wording. Unless. Unless in this context means, that A will only be carried out if B is fulfilled before hand. So to take care of the child she has to be stupid. Also, "it's" ? :lol: Slightly cold and impersonal Robert.

\ :thumbup: They just don't make good cartoons anymore, and generally good shows for kids. Lately it looks like bad flash animation. My TV shows : Daria Blackadder Fry and Laurie The Simpsons BSG Red Dwarf Fawlty Towers Mr. Bean Morecambe and Wise

Lets just drop it after this post - ok ?

[hide=Lets play "Spot the spelling mistake" -- exclusivley for the [bleep]wit above me]A poster "to" stupid to spell "too". I think the child has rights over the mther. What's more improtent ? The mother and her (in)ability to take care of her child or the child's life ? To me the saftery of the child takes preceedence over the mothers whim. It's simple, if you do not have the ability to raise and sustain a person in this world, you have NO RIGHT to take care of them. It is in both partie's interest to do so. What ? You are mkaing no sence. Options 1.) She has the ability to raise the child thus she has the right to raise the child 2.) She does not have the abillity to raise the child thus she is not alowed to raise the child 3.) She does not have the abilty to raise the child thus she is alowwed to raise the child 4.) She has the ability to raise the child and is denied that right. [For no apparent reason] To me, 1 and 2 seem the most logical whereas 3 is plain idiotic. 4 has no relevance. then it's hers to keep What do you mean by this, Robert ? You seem confosed. Or you're looking for a fight. Either way, explane plees.[/hide] EDIT: :