Scruffy5389

"Pete Jackson is Getting Married" by Less Than Jake. I don't like the song much. The singer overdrives his voice a little too much and the lyrics aren't anything special, but there's one moment where they stop the heavy distortion and two guys just sing "na na na na" in a really cool moment of pretty complicated melodic harmony. Sometimes I listen to the song just for that moment :wink:

Arm the Homeless! :lol:

in the rhinos/stripes theme, you could talk about whether zebras are white with black stripes or black with white stripes, like in that movie Madagascar

Most Asian languages seem to be really weird when spoken. I can't even tell a word from each other. Doesn't matter is it japanese, korean or chinese, it's still total gibberish in my ears. Americans often think that all Asians can understand each other because all their languages sound the same to us. A Korean student once told me that this is obviously untrue. All the major Asian languages are extremely different. Yet somehow, he said that whenever an American tries to imitate one of them, it always sounds like Chinese :P Personally, tonal languages (in a tonal language, words that are exactly the same can have completely different meanings depending on the pitch) sound funny to me because all the tonal stuff makes the inflection seem funny and really random. No offense meant to anyone. I have a good friend who speaks a tonal language. :D

At least it's a step in the right direction :wink:

You say: "There comes a point where you think, 'if we really want world peace we're going to have to expand our horizons.' " I absolutely agree with this. No country may isolate itself from the world; troubles elsewhere will affect us somehow. Plus, isolationism is bad for the economy. And there are certainly moral reasons for fighting genocide, even if the violence doesn't threaten us directly. I don't mean to argue in favor of isolationism. However... You say: "Don't we have a moral responsibility as the western powers to resolve these atrocities?" I am not sure that we do. Who gave us the right to police the world? One can argue that with great power comes great responsibility, but to me, that might just mean that great power has the responsibilty to not abuse said power. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have to actively use that power for positive good. But I am not sure. Anyway, I think that in this case it is irrelevent. Because whether we should work to fight atrocities or not, in the case of Iraq, we simply do not have the power to control the chaos. You claim that at the moment we can afford to stay in Iraq. Yet I just heard today from an extremely credible source (although he is very liberal) that just last week, congress was forced to vote to raise the maximum allowable national debt. The accumulated national debt was at 8.2 or 8.3 TRILLION DOLLARS, and congress had to raise the ceiling to 9 TRILLION DOLLARS. The GWBush administration is responsible for something like a third of this debt. Proof: Do we really believe that the national government can afford to keep pouring money into Iraq? No. The way things are going in Iraq, we will run out of money before there is a viable Iraqi army that can keep the peace in our place. There is no way that America can stabilize Iraq, and I think we could have predicted that before we went to war in the first place. Whether the western world has an obilgation or not, America was pig-headed to think that we had the power to liberate and stabilize Iraq. You write: "If we continually support and condition Iraq to take care of itself then eventually we can pull out and leave democracy to take care of the rest." I admit, if we continually support and condition Iraq, we can achieve relative stability and leave behind a country that can continue to stabilize itself. But we do not have the money to continually support and condition Iraq. We will bleed our country dry before stabilizing Iraq. We have already lost the war. The question that faces us now is this: Do we leave now in disgrace, or do we spend more money, lose more lives, and then leave in disgrace? I'm scaring myself :shock: . But whether this is a pleasant view or not, I think it's true. And it really does scare me. :( I strongly urge you to read that article I posted (it's pretty long, just read the first two pages and the last page if you want). It says that if we make the necessary changes, we could create an Iraqi army, but GWBush is neither making those changes or even attempting to make those changes. And I'm not even convinced that drastic changes will be able to create an Iraqi army in time, or that an Iraqi army - no matter how well trained - could keep the peace after we left. We can't even keep the peace ourselves. Our only choice is to leave before we waste more money and lives. Assassin, Barihawk, or anyone else who has been trying to understand my monstrous posts, I am interested to hear what you think :D

Okay, that AIM conversation was absolutely crystal clear. She is obviously interested in you. Go for it. :D My only advice: ask her in person. It may feel less awkward online, but in the end asking someone online only makes it more awkward when you meet face-to-face.

Aw man, I knew I should have just left Israel out of my post entirely... Anyway, what I meant by "Israel was more unified" was that there was a single, determined group (the Jewish Israelis) that was united behind one clear goal and motivated by the same religion and idealism. I admit that the turmoil in Israel has been some of the worst in the world, but the situation stabilized (sp?) into two united, opposing sides without (comparatively) too much money from the United States. Iraq is a different matter. Iraq is simply too fractured. There are simply too many different groups, none of whom have really clear goals that could bring people together. They are barely even a country; they certainly have nothing to rally around. Instead, we waste our money while thugs perform nearly random acts of violence against innocent civilians, and we are simply not powerful enough to bring them together. That sounds fine in theory, but I read in the paper within the past couple of months that the Iraqi military/police is less prepared now than it was a year ago. We are not moving forward; Iraq is in as much chaos as it was a year or two ago. Why should we think it will improve? The situation is deteriorating before our eyes. The insurgents aren't even going after Americans specifically anymore, they're attacking each other (like that mosque recently), and the presence of American troops is practically irrellevent. We have lost control, lost lives, lost money, and there is no hope for improvement. ... Okay, did some very brief research, and apparently I'm not remembering the paper right. The Iraqi military/police is not worse off, but it still isn't even close to good, or even improving. Here's a site that talks about the task of creating a viable Iraqi military. The author is very widely respected; the article is impeccably well-researched and well-written. It claims that the task is possible, but calls for drastic changes immediately, or we will fail completely. Personally, I don't think America (least of all George Bush) can make those changes in time. And even if we do create an Iraqi army, what then? We leave, claiming victory, and the Iraqi army keeps fighting? Barihawk, you use Israel as an example of success, but there is still fighting in Israel, too. Is that success? We cannot stabilize Iraq. It was a waste to try. Now that we're in, what can we do? We're screwed. That article I found wrote it best: Damned if we stay, damned if we leave. I say leave. It's cheaper.

In history, the United States didn't have religious fundamentalism to breed irrational hatred and violence, so we could work our problems out alone. The Iraqis are not ready to govern themselves, and the United States of America, leading nation of the world, is simply not powerful or rich enough to govern or stabilize their country for them. Our attempt to do so is embarrassing our nation, giving our nation a bad name internationally, and putting our country deep into terrible debt. The way things are going, we will destroy our nation before we achieve a stable democracy in Iraq. Maybe with infinite money and time, America could make Iraq into a stable democracy. That seems to be your premise; that three years is not long enough to judge. But I how much longer can we pay for this war? We can't. I repeat: we will destroy our nation before we achieve a stable democracy in Iraq. Unfortunately, I don't know anything about Israeli history either, but it seems to me that Israel was a little more unified to begin with. The Israelis could come to agree on common goals and stop their in-fighting. The Iraqis are simply too fractured a people for us to bring them together easily.

I think certain aspects of it are. It's probably harder for the average citizen nowadays but you don't have the genocides and the fear of the system that you had in Saddam's rule. Saddam ruled with a system of terror, almost like Stalin on a smaller scale. Many people living in Russia during Stalin's rule regealed him as a great leader, but since his rule it's been estimated that some 10 million people died in his purges. Does this make what he did right? Propoganda is king here. People only believe what they're told. Especially in a dictatorship where they're unable to look outside the system. I appreciate the global media has now entered Iraq but believe me even though Saddam may of kept a relatively stable, it was stable in so far as there was no room for opposition. There were still horrendous things going on, but they were just happening behind the curtain of the "stable" system. Stability is relative, Nazi Germany was "stable" but does that mean we should of just left it? I don't know my Russian history well enough to comment on Stalin :? Nazi Germany was aggressive, and it was growing as a world power. I think we had to fight against it, simply to save ourselves. (I'm agreeing with you on that point.) However, Iraq under Saddam was not a threat to the United States. He had no nukes, he 'looked into' chemical warfare once or twice but was not out to take over the world. He ruled his little middle eastern country and was content to keep his atrocities within his own borders. Because he was not a threat to us, I think we should have left him alone. That said, he was a genocidal murderer, and if we could truly reform Iraq, of course we should do the right thing and take him out of power for the good of his people. But it was obvious before we went in and is becoming increasingly obvious as the months drag by that the United States does not have the power to stabilize democracy in Iraq, and has instead replaced stable, brutal oppression with unstable, brutal anarchy. Personally, I don't care which one is better. It certainly wasn't worth the American lives and money. We should have left Saddam alone. That's just my argument against going into Iraq in the first place; it's the same argument I used before we even took over Baghdad. It has nothing to do with whether Saddam was evil or not or deserved to be in power or not. I just don't think that we had or have the power to liberate and stabilize Iraq, and since Iraq was not a threat to us (and didn't appear to be becoming one) why should we have wasted so much time, money, and American lives trying to do so? There's my view. Nothing more than that, and I would like to emphasize that I strongly disagree with nearly everything else Kryptic has written. Saddam back is just about the worst idea I've ever heard. Kryptic's post appears to be pure propaganda, with little truth in his claims or deep thought behind his arguments. I'm afraid I don't have the time to argue against him, but I did want to type up my theory on the Iraq war in general. EDIT: Okay, I had to type that fairly quickly (which is why it's long and ill-organized :P ), but I'd like to clarify what my purpose was in writing this post. I think Kryptic's opinions are extremely radical, and I am worried that people who support the war may take Kryptic as an example of the typical dissenter. This is untrue, and I wrote this post in an effort to distance the anti-war movement from some of the more extreme opinions like Kryptic's. Sorry Kryptic, but I don't want all war protesters to be tarred with the same brush as you. That said, Kryptic did raise a basic argument that I consider a reasonable and fundamental objection to the war, and I wanted to reinforce that argument. Although I think Kryptic gives a bad name to war protesters in general because of his more extreme statements, he does have a legitimate anti-war idea that I support full-heartedly. Basically, Iraq is little better off now than it was before we 'liberated' it. There is no genocide; instead there's just civil war. We can argue all day about whether anarchy and civil war is better than stability and mass genocide; the point is that they're both awful and we've wasted a ton of money (billions or trillions?) jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. That is, I believe, similar to the core of Kryptic's argument. However, Kryptic seems to argue that the stability of Saddam's rule definitely was better than civil war no matter how murderous Saddam was, and I disagree with that. It's a very hard comparison to make, and I especially want to avoid saying anything good about saddam or his regime. Kryptic, I'm sorry to leave you out in the cold, but I don't want my opinions to even be associated with the idea that we should put Saddam back in power (you don't say this directly, but you mention that it is what the Iraqis want), or that Saddam's rule "wasn't all that bad." I'm also not sure I trust your claim about being Arab, but that is a separate issue. Hope we can all talk about this in a mature manner :D And hopefully in the future I'll achieve better organization in my posts than this :roll: :lol:

Thanks Merc :D I didn't want to burn and re-rip because of possible quality loss, but I can do that if I have to. It looks like dBpowerAMP will do the trick anyway. We'll see. Now I just have to get over my internet download phobia :shock:

Hey everybody, I tried to do a search for this, but couldn't find an answer. I have windows XP, and my primary media player is just Windows Media Player. I have an mp3 player that can play .mp3's and .wma's. However, a lot of .wma's have content protection, and my mp3 player can't play them. So, I have a CD's worth of .wma files that are all protected, and I want to change them to mp3 format (from experience I know this removes the protection). Does anyone know how to do this? In the past, when I rip music from CDs to the computer, I just changed the rip settings so that when the files are ripped, they are automatically turned into mp3's. However, I don't have this CD with me at the moment, so I can't "re-rip" the files as mp3's. I need a way to take a music file (wma) and convert it, without a CD burner or other stuff like that, to mp3 format. Any suggestions? Thanks

^Maybe we should just pretend he didn't say that :shock:

I know what you mean, but I disagree. It has as much detail as most of the best smaller pieces, he just upped the scale. And in some places the detail really does justify the size. Like that big ugly fangly fishy. :wink: Pikachu's a goner... :(

Mealworms wrapped up in birthday present wrapping paper. EDIT: For feeding the bluebirds, of course.... :P

The first one is the newest one, right? You're right, the jeans look awesome. Problem I see is that his forearms are big and thick and brawny, but his bicep area and shoulders and torso are skinny. Either bulk him up (definitely make his shoulders wider than his abdomen), or thin down those arms. Thinner forearms might make wrists apparent, too. Better than I could do, anyway :wink:

You think so? Ok.. try to kill your self and ressurect like in a computer game... And more... I wouldnt change all my real life stuff for "virtual" stuff... ~komodo I think you misunderstood him. He was saying that real life is not very safe, because you can't kill yourself and then get resurrected like in a computer game. We flame because we're safe on the computer and don't have to face the consequences of shooting our mouths off to someone who's bigger and stronger than us. The computer is safe because it's not real. He wasn't saying that it's better than real life. EDIT: woah you changed your sig and avvy while I wrote that. Nice parrot :D

haha.... because nowhere in his real skills does he have an 8 to use as reference :lol: He needs one more crafting lvl :lol:

I think your text needs adjusting. Instead of rotating it, verticle lines should be left vertical, while the horizontal is skewed. If that makes sense... Like below, on the left instead of like on the right. Admittedly, your reference picture has text like yours, but I think that's a mistake. I think there was probably something slightly wrong with the camera angle. Other than that, it's pretty cool. Awesome idea :D A little something in the yellow next to the road might be cool, if you wanted to put in some extra time :wink:

Looks pretty cool. If I had those programs, I'd try it immediately :D But since I don't, I'm not much help :(

Since it's a made-up word anyway, I'd say you can do what you want with it :wink:

I have posted this movie on the forums before... anyways, this is my favourite quote from that movie. Ive tried to use it in a debate at school, but no one gets it. Curse stupid people! :x I'm not sure that I "get it," either :? . Is he just saying that if one country loves something, another country hates them for having that love? Anyway, not a bad movie. I like how it's anti-war, not just anti-iraqi freedom. This guy is against all war, universally, everywhere. Nice view to have, although I personally find it a little simplistic. I think the US was right, for example, to join the war against Hitler. But that might be an argument for a different thread.

Bullying is accepted here?? No. No it isn't. It is not accepted anywhere in the world, but it is still common everywhere. Unfortunately I think you'll find that there are bullies in the UK, there are bullies worldwide, you're not going to escape them by leaving the US. Bullying is a part of the human condition. But it's not considered acceptable anywhere. EDIT: Purepehmo, that was unkind. There are better ways to make your point than that. :?

I knew most of that already, so I was feeling pretty full of myself, laughing at the bearded guy, etc, but then he started talking about how the act of observation changes the pattern on the screen... :shock: Pretty freaky. If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one there to hear, did it ever make a sound?

Oh man, I should've been around for the first four or five pages of this thread. People were actually arguing logically and civilly! :shock: (Not that they aren't anymore, it's just that the debate has cooled a little.) My thoughts on God: It would be great if he existed. But I don't believe it. Dang :( I'm working on organizing my thoughts on science vs. religion. Long essay to come. :D