BlueLancer

Remember to buy her something when she gets out of the hospital. 8-) That never hurts... Sorry to hear about that. Makes me wonder too, I often have huge chest pains (also while I write this), prevention is definitely something you should look into. Diet can affect it a lot, some heart disease runs in my family too and has been often linked to eating too much high-cholesterol fats (excessive amounts of margarine, animal fats, etc.)

Kelem_ryu is right. The negativeness of drugs is totally objective; Naturally most western societies are brainwashed into thinking it's a negative influence on us, yet we keep using cigarettes, alcohol and overdosing prescription drugs that can have even worse effects. I've never tried any drugs myself, but I've read about them and heard about people in real life too much to think about them too negatively. It could be the best thing in the world, but I'll not risk addiction anyways (just like I wont with alcohol). In America, some native americans are even allowed to use Marijuana as a treatment for certain diseases because they have been using it for centuries. On the other hand I don't agree at all with using hard drugs like heroin/cocaine. It is far too expensive (often over $500/1 gram) to be consumed frequently by an average person, which will very often lead to criminal activity to finance the drugs. They also cause extreme addictiveness which is next to impossible to cure, because the effects are also physical and modify your brain cells for good. It's also worthy to note that in the Netherlands, which is a very liberal country in Europe, drugs aren't even illegal. Less people die of Marijuana every year than of alcohol. In fact, I haven't even seen statistics proving deaths directly linked to light drugs like Marijuana. That mother is sick though; There's no justification for giving a young child cocaine and possibly ruining his/her life. She has no common sense. Yeah, and marijuana is legal in the Netherlands. What's your point? Just because something is legal it doesn't mean it's somehow "better". Laws are just a bunch of text accepted by the public opinion to be true. Public opinion can be swayed one way or another. You'll find that US laws mean nothing to some judges. In Vermont, recently, a judge let a convicted child molestor out of prison after one day (maybe it was one week? Either way...pethetically small...) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181498,00.html That judge seriously needs to get his head checked. And it was 60 days, which is a laugh when comparing to the magnitude of the crime.

But what is it that he "can"? Protect her from words she'll be seeing and hearing everywhere anyways? Besides, that's not the point of the book. The strong vocabulary just strengthens the message. You're just making assumptions. I never curse and then again I've watched tons of violent movies and listened to a lot of murder-glorifying rap music. Not even when I'm angry, though occassionally like any other person the f word might slip. If you have a bit of brain, you will be able to separate real life from fantasy world like movies. Millions of people listened to 50 cent and Tupac Shakur, do you think their music will be ever banned just because it contains lyrics with drugs, murder, sex, alcohol that supposedly persuade people into doing the same things? :notalk: I don't want to play around with statistics; A majority of people at that age (at least in America) have had sex and whether they're psychologically ready for it or not has nothing to do with the PG limitations on movies. A 15-year old could be emotionally much more advanced than you think. You're right, the parent has the right to protect the child. He has also the choice of using his brain, knowing that his daughter's life wont be ruined if she occassionally reads the word "damn" or "F***" printed on paper. He's just embarrassing her, causing unnecessary attention at school.

Guitars simply rock.

Just amusing. The father is simply put a moron; He didn't even read the book and now he's blaming it for 'bad language' and 'citing God...' Trying to shelter her 15 year old daughter from "bad words". Will he go to her school and tell all the other kids not to swear or he'll beat them up? About the PG thing: I watched Rambo and mortal kombat when I was about 5, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. How many of you really obeyed those "guidances" with religious respect as a child? And do you really believe the majority of children will be negatively affected by it? Though, some of the age restrictions DO exist for a reason. There are movies that shouldn't be seen by kids under age 14 or so, but after that it becomes impossible to tell a teen what movies he/she can watch and what he cant, if the kid has even the slightest bit of determination he/she will just go over to his/her friends house and watch it there. Duh.

Not to everyone. (I do totally agree with the bacon example though, such a human would be very dumb to die for it and it is not rational. Vegetarianism and other diets exist mostly if not only in wealthy countries where people have choice) I am 100% positive I would give my own life to save an innocent human life or my family members. Not only that but I could die knowing my life had a definite purpose then... What can be more valuable? I do value my life and am completely happy with it, but if it means the life and death of several people, I'm willing to sacrifice it. For selfish reasons, I couldn't do that either. Life is just too powerful of a force to just throw away. But, again, I would swallow the cyanide to save innocent human lives. Just my stance. I'm not entirely an altruist but if it comes to situations where other people's lives are threatened, I don't see it so necessary to survive myself if people weaker than me (especially children) will have no chance of life due to my choice. Let me make an example. If I were to choose, would all the people on tip.it be killed so that I could survive, or I could take my own life and save the lives of the people posting here? I don't even see for a second how I'd hesitate. My life is not so precious, just one human life, compared to thousands of human lives who did nothing wrong to deserve death.

..That made no sense..

Colin Powell is/was just about the only reasonable and rational member of the Bush administration, kind of sucks that now he's gone too. He could have chances to run for president, I'd probably vote for him over Al Gore. Just read statements and interviews from this guy, he's not the average politician. We need more politicians with his attitude. You don't have to agree with everything your employer (i.e. the government) does.

I've REMOTELY heard of Arcturus and how it kicks every other planets [wagon]. But that's just, wow. Think if we lived on a planet the size of Antares with enough conditions for human life to exist, we wouldn't have any of these overpopulation problems really, even with a trillion people...

Same here. I'm against the torture of domestic animals as well :shame:

Well I on the other hand never cease to be amazed at how some people here legitimately got over 10,000 posts in 2 years (as tip.it isn't *that* active*)... 8-) Congratulations on your 2nd anniversary. :) Now that you mentioned it, I just hit it too some time ago. And before that, on scapeboard, naturally... And before that, runetipit.board.dk3.com... And before that....

..And North Korean "textbooks" say the whole world mourned when Kim Il-sung passed away, sending gifts, sacrificing bulls and announcing public holidays... The League of Nations didn't "fail" because the US didn't join. The US didn't even want to join in the first place because they were already so involved with european affairs, and the congress didn't give approval. The organisation was still functional without the US who never even intended to join.

Mad is right; The UN is a crippled half-efficient puppet of the United States. You might want to look at how their veto power is constantly being abused. http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html A lot of resolutions have been tried to be passed to condemn Israel for different atrocities or war crimes it has committed. In most of the cases, every single other nation votes 'Yes', and USA vetoes. Nothing gets done. The security council... http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/me ... tosubj.htm It is still too much based on the old League of Nations system which ensured countries will stay in the league by offering them unlimited veto on everything. Then there is the issue of the general secretary. This is a joke. These people are usually very highly educated and smart people, yet their opinions aren't usually listened to. They are like theatrical monarchs; In reality they are just that; puppets. Everything they say or propose must not be controversial; if they say something 'inappropriate' they will be just overthrown. John Bolton, the US UN ambassador phrased it well: It's all there just to look "big" in the common man's eye. Until they transform more power to the organisation itself; to political experts and analysts who collect information from citizens based on what changes the people of the world want in the organisation, it's just a joke. Why not let the citizens of the world vote directly for the next General Secretary, on the condition that you can't vote for the candidate in your own country? (To ensure China doesn't always win) The organisation currently is surrounded with clout. The security council is nothing more than a conference room where the biggest countries try to protect their own interests and threaten other, smaller nations.

I think it's a great way to make a quick buck on teens, the name is "cool" so many people will just buy it because of the 'badass' label. The owner could easily make a few million dollars with this and if it becomes banned, he wouldn't probably give two craps because he's rich already. I seriously doubt it will lead to more people using cocaine for real. You don't just "get" cocaine. If you stroll a sidewalk at 2.a.m and some big guy in a leather jacket offers you a few grams of "blitz" for $300 dollars but wants to appear 'generous' and gives you a sample for free, it's up to you to decide. Much better to have young adults (the most likely target group) want to look 'tough' by drinking this than going for the real stuff.

I'm probably just dumb when it comes to this game but I played the Arena version (Dofus Arena) and I have *no* idea how the heck I am supposed to make moves during combat. So naturally, I was defeated like a limp fish. I tried clicking all the buttons and options, hit every key on my keyboard, but my character just stood there. :wall:

Exactly. That is my problem with Bush. He claims to be a conservative but he's not at all - just like his daddy. He says it just to get the Reagan vote...just like his daddy did. :P Yep, the root cause of all evil is the lies. The worse part is...Americans actually buy the lies and believe them. However, I don't see how it is an oligarchy (gov't by few) at all. Don't we have Congress and all that jazz? If it was just the executive branch running the whole country I would agree. Oh, we just hate those people, don't we Ghost? :D Further reading: http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.p ... 14/6660379 In theory it is still possible to have influence on politics by getting elected to the senate/congress, but then again it's interesting to note that the average wealth of a senator for example is counted in the millions (average $33m with the top dogs at $100m+); In the nordic parliaments very few (if any) of the members have even wealth exceeding $500,000 (not counting homes).

That's not that much of a problem in Norway. In Scandinavia, more women work than anywhere else in the world, and their just trying to keep it that way. I see nothing wrong with women filling the boards of large corporations; I see a big problem with forcing it. Those guys sitting in the boards are hard boiled old men who created those companies or bought the majority shares/rose into position by promotion. You can't just put a woman here and there just because of her gender, she must have qualification too. And I'm willing to bet currently that even in a liberal country such as Norway, with a population of 4.3 million there can't be over five thousand women with decades of experience in running international companies and managing stock portfolios to fill the boards. If you start dragging women there from the customer support, it will just be a comical situation. I believe in 'free supply and demand'. Just let things evolve as they do (since in nordic countries the amount of women rising to executive tasks is already exponential) and there will be 40% without any laws necessary. But forcing an old dog to run rounds around the stadium doesn't happen in an instant.

I agree with a lot of your points (especially the negative advertising) but I don't know why you consider these qualities to have to do with a true Democracy. What does state regulated funding have to do with the principles of democracy? Maybe you know something I don't... The core principle of democracy is the people's ability to decide about their own lives and to choose their own leaders from amongst themselves. What the United States has already turned into, is Plutocracy, i.e. rule by wealth. It is safe to say that without something groundbreaking event, it is now literally impossible to be elected president in the United States unless you come from a social background of enormous wealth or power connections, gaining multi-million dollar donations from corporations that want to further their agenda through you, ... And obviously, since the two major parties compete for power, small players like Ralph Nader don't stand a real chance. The people HAVE to choose one candidate over the another, one millionaire over another. While it is in theory democracy, the truly merited and politically aware people of America will never stand a chance of being elected as president no matter how much better they could do the job. Then, for example let's look at the current president of Finland. She is an ordinary woman with no significant family background who even worked in a gay rights group before getting into politics. She rose from an ordinary citizen to be the president by the power of the people. It almost sounds like an utopia in America, doesn't it? But countries like this do exist. It's just that in america everything is so polluted by money it is IMPOSSIBLE to advance to such high positions without cold hard cash. That moment, it stops being a democracy. And as you know it, the chances are zero that you or I, as citizens, ever could hold the position of president in America, no matter how hard we studied or worked in the field. In a democracy, all people have equal chances in politics before the people, should they be chosen to represent them. In america however, your opinion cannot be voiced if you are not extremely wealthy.

Well, in true democratic countries (read= Scandinavia), the presidential candidates get equal funding from their parties and if necessary, from the state. Also, any interviews or debates will be only aired on official state-owned channels prime-time, with equal opportunity for both candidates to express themselves. The american system is ridiculous and will ensure no independent politician will ever make it to the presidential "throne" unless he is a billionaire. Also, you'll continuously see ads by the other candidate that bash the other and try to convince you about his badness. This is in my opinion bad taste but what are you going to do, the masses do vote based on what they hear every day, repeated and repeated as fact...

Yeah, but the example on the site is just awesome. Let's test it on tip.it users. Since the politically correct way is to label 'black' people as 'african americans', the politically "correct" addressing itself is full of incorrectness. Assume you saw this picture. African american? No, this guy is from Great Britain. Still none of you would call him British american, or British Australian even if those would reflect the current status of the person. African american..? Yes. This man was born in Ivory Coast, and moved to the United States, so apparently the label now is a geographical one? Make up your minds already. It doesn't matter what you decide to call somebody, chances are you aren't being correct anyway. And no, I didn't hotlink!

So true...

Haha, that's classic. :) I'm really considering of doing that one day with a better financial situation. Just knock on somebody's door (preferably somebody unknown to you but you still know he/she lives in poverty), say "I just wanted you to know I hope you to have a nice day", slip a hundred dollar bill in his/her hand, give a pat on the back and leave. Just out of spite. Oh, the look on that person's face for the next 5 hours...

Today I logged into runescape, just to find out after walking for about 20 minutes, out of nowhere I was dragged into some dungeon where I had to pop cat balloons. Pretty scary. After a while I passed it and got 2 diamonds.

See, I didn't mock you for not having my religion - and you still just said that mine is wrong when I whole-heartedly believe it is the right one. Why would you do that? I didn't mock you; by your words I mocked Muslims, Jews, Jehovah's witnesses, Buddhists, Taoists, The church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and countless others. I really didn't. I was just presenting you with my opinion: There is no right religion. You don't have to accept it, but other than on an emotional basis, there can be no "true" belief of anything which can't be proven to exist. Go tell a Buddhist or Muslim your religion is right. They will have a differing opinion; Nobody can be right in this argument because all 3 parties only have opinions and beliefs, not black on white hard evidence. Thus all 3 should respect each other. But I have no problem with you being a christian (or if you are a member of some other religion and you were just using an example) and I strongly think you are entitled to believing whatever you want especially if it makes you happier. 8-)