yomom1919

Your arm and hand looks just like my arm and hand.

...when your a stranger, faces look ugly, when your alone. women seem wicked, when your unwanted. Streets are uneven when you're down When you're strange Faces come out of the rain When you're strange No one remembers your name When you're strange

Like someone said, they most likely have one already. No way, if anyone was asked, would they say they wouldn't want any new console for Christmas. I got a 360 last month, and none of the other consoles really appeal to me.

So can I still go on porn or no?

Worst: Being assigned 80 pages of The Canterbury Tales and taking notes on it by my English teacher. Taking notes means 1 page of notes per 1 and 1/2 pages of text. Best: When my physics teacher called some kids girlfriend a [garden tool].

Kiss - Paperclips Kiss - Paperclips Kiss - Paperclips Kiss - Paperclips Kiss - Paperclips

Green is definitely the best, relaxing and cheerful.

That's just me I suppose: in my eyes, the more realistic = better, I'm a fan of realistic shooters. My dream FPS [and I'm still waiting for some company to make it] is superbly realistic. For example: changing environments (last time I checked RPG's go through walls). I'm glad that they added shooting through walls in COD4, thats a step toward realism I was waiting for for a while.

Just beat it on veteran, including mile high club [such an annoying mission]. My second favorite shooter of all time, next to SOCOM. Is it just my connection or do you get dropped from lobbies often for no reason? To be honest, this was the first time I actually liked a game's single player more than the multi, its such a good single player game. Make sure you play it in veteran also, it's more realistic [3 hits to down you] and will last you longer than the 5 hour single player [because you loose so often.]

Goodluck with that.

Haha, my friend, do you realize what you have just said? There will be no greed-stopping among humans anytime soon. Hell, the developed world's economic system is based off greed. We're human, there is no way to stop greed. [unless, ofcourse, you were referring to this on a smaller scale, such as putting Burger King out of business. Regardless, they still make a hell of alot of money and I don't think any petition is going to change that.]

Hmm, apparently we've all calmed down about this subject. Grats, guys. [not sarcasm].

Love and Freedom: War and Peace?

I've found out long ago that one of the hardest things to do is explain why you actually like something. Sure the musicians may be great, the singers voice is on pitch, etc. But when you like something or find something awesome, its a feeling you really can't explain. A bunch of factors coming together to make something great, combined with your natural tastes. This applies to everything. But if the question were "What does music do for you", It gives me an escape, a place where I go with my thoughts. When I listen to music I usually do nothing else but lie on my bed and think. It's really.... great.

I'm not sure if I should give up hope because your either not reading correctly or failing to understand, or continue arguing. First of all, its not about good thinkers and bad thinkers. But while I'm at it, I think I'll go ahead and address that statement anyway. What proof do you have that suggests there is a small minority of bad thinkers? I don't know how much of the world you've actually seen [not literally] or how much history you've actually studied, but I'm pretty sure that the 'bad thinkers' clan has a bit more then a minority of members... Free speech is, metaphorically, 'God-given' (as in a natural right). You said it yourself "you can't just take it away". Exactly, you can't just take it away, but if you have a reason to you can. Do you object to jail because a murderer has a right to freedom? I'll wait to see if you catch on or not, i suppose, by your answer of the last question.

Woah there, I never said people can't be trusted to vote? Actually I would like to know where you got that from? How is "Voting has gone down" is a seperate problem? It shows less people actually care about their government and take it for granted. What if a leader appealed to base human nature through their speeches, and some actually listened? Sure, there haven't been very good speechmaking politicians recently, but words can instill emotion and change someone's mind, through a simple speech. How do you suppose they detect a bad ruler who is charismatic and influential? Leaders can put on a facade, become a respected and loved person although their motives prove otherwise. 'Detecting a bad ruler' can be easy when their policies are bad and they don't have much control or influence over their people, but what if the person is truly captivating? Nobody is secure from their mind, it can always be influenced unless you consciously defend it. Take teachers for example, they can alter your perceptions about things easily. If a person does not know where they stand, another will and can more easily tell them. I'm not saying it is, or will be, especially in this day and age. All I'm saying that it is not impossible. But, back to the main point of this topic, people attempting to directly remove others rights while in power or vying for power should be silenced. Suppose they gain power? Giving them a platform for speech increases their chances of coming to power. What if other members of this party share the same views, vocalized them, and were voted into power on the basis of their other opinions for government? Then you have people in government and in power who can attempt to remove others rights. That is the danger in all this. Giving someone a voice can lead them into power, and the whole sidetracked argument about the susceptibility of humans was to try to attempt to show you how these people can and will remove rights. In time, maybe even a few years, you will realize the obvious truth that people attempting to remove other's rights should not be allowed their own rights. For instance, take it in a physical sense. A murderer removes one's rights to life. Therefore, a murderer is jailed and looses his right to freedom. A scam artist removes one's rights to property, and is therefore jailed and looses his right of property and freedom. Is that not logical? What if the person attempted murder or attempted scam? Should we let them off on the premise that they have not actually removed rights, and only attempted to remove them, and therefore should be set free? I know its a stretched example, but I don't think you fully comprehend the power of speech yet.

I never said that. By 'protected' I meant protected from speakers such as this. Really, there aren't many people that are mindlessly ignorant? What percentage of Americans legally able to vote actually do? How many actually care about sustaining a stable government? The answer is most of them think their republic of America is so invincible and take so much pride in it they feel it will never be threatened or harmed by people seeking personal power [demagogues]. But how do you secure that it won't be threatened? Does simply being so confident I won't be mugged in the city make me immune to mugging? Of course not, thats stupid. Like Lionheart said, we must be educated. But then a problem presents itself, like I mentioned earlier, what percentage of your classmates truly care about education, compared to the mass amounts of them just 'floating' through school, squeezing by? Your future is decided by the few people in the upper percentage of your class, the more intelligent, those who actually care. But isn't it dangerous when only a few people care about your government? People can use false premises to get into control, they can gain power through other means. Hitler was voted into power in Germany. Lets put it this way, have you personally read the patriot act? Suppose the media didn't protect the public, and didn't report on the unconstitutionality of the act. Would you personally read it and learn for yourself? How many people you know would do this? Not many, I assume. We depend on the honesty of the media as well as politicians for our security. A republic is one of the more dangerous types of government, because it is vulnerable to one man or central figure taking power. For example, Lincoln could have taken complete control of the country after the Civil War, became a dictator. He didn't, because of his honesty and sincere care about the Union, it depended completely on his honesty. But who's to say that a future politician will care about the Union more than his own personal goals?

Vote for Vanessa Hudgens insead, she has nudies.

But then it comes to a matter of simple development cycle. At 13, even if you are educated in government, are you truly intelligent or developed enough to distinguish propaganda? Do you know enough about the history of America, the goals of government, and what America stands for? True American history education usually doesn't come till sophomore and junior years of highschool, when AP American history is offered. Memorizing facts about history is much different than actually comprehending it; it's about understanding motives and recognizing them, which can be learned through analysis of political figures speeches. I am doubtful that a 13 or 14 year old would be capable of this.

Exactly, but people still have minds to be poisoned. Demagogues can still take control, the republic of America is not invulnerable, and we should not be illusioned to think that. Minds can be poisoned, no matter what form of government we are in, which is why, like you said, we must be educated. But how much do your peers your age care about education? How much faith do you have in them? I don't know about you, but I don't have much faith in my peers. In case you don't realize it, the security of the masses depends on the honesty and nobility of those in power [not only in government but in the media, etc.] Which is why people should be protected, because many will not realize they are being taken advantage of or having their rights infringed. My history teacher proved this very well to us; he made us read the Dred Scott Supreme court case as well as the Taney decision. He asked us to vote on who thought the decision was legally sound, and no one in the class objected that it was not legally sound [granted that slavery was legal]. Then he proved the historical flaws in Taney's argument and absolutely destroyed his argument [Taney was a demagogue who happened to know what he was doing.] The nation at the time also happened to think his decision was legally sound [except for a few, such as Lincoln.] My point being, the masses are not invulnerable because of ignorance and simple lack of care.

First of all, you don't need a bunch of addons for 360. If your getting that impression because of a certain yahoo answers answer, that post by that guy is the most biased bunch of BS you'll ever read. Actually, you don't need any at all, it comes with everything you need. The only beef I have with addons are that extra controllers run 40-50 bucks, which I think is ridiculous. ...It only costs as much as an hour of work at minimum wage. In my opinion, go with the 360, only because I've been hearing alot about the delays for games and developers having problems. Sure, the ps3 will probably establish itself eventually like Sony keeps saying, but why wait? The 360 has already established itself.

But then you have parental pressure about who to vote for. No matter what the teachers say [even if they are unbiased], parents who are strong on either side will try to influence their children, possibly even spread propaganda, to get them to vote for their party. Or maybe reward their children to vote for a certain side. I think when teens are [mostly] out of parental pressure, both legally and maturely, they should be able to vote, which is why I agree with the voting age at 18.

So you don't mind people using rights to attempt to remove your rights?

No, because most 8th graders know jack [cabbage] about politics, and most likely don't care about it either. Your teacher is a self-righteous nut.

Some people use the right of free speech to attempt to remove or infringe on the rights of others. That should obviously not be allowed.