DeathBug

[size=1][font=century][color=indigo]You know, I'm thinking of naming a pet after an anime character; I want a black cat named "Mihoshi". Unfortunatly, I be allergic to cats. As for children, which are like more obnoxious pets that want to drive your car... I'm thinking Alexander, Seth, Bradly or Xavier for a boy. For a girl, I'm thinking Bonita, Clarissa or Paige. Should probably look up name origins and stuff before having a kid...[/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]The dEmon Soldier swore again; stupid fish! He summoned the Worm Drakes back to him, and rode them to the reef, following the whale. When he caught up, he leapt on top of the whale and plunged his Lightning Blade into the whale's side.[/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] :laugh: Confused? How about trying different ideas off the top of my head? Before I answer to your post Deathbug, Baron Samedi, "getting ahead" is considered a motivation. It can simply be replaced by another motivation.[/B][/QUOTE] No, it can't. It is deeply ingrained in the human psyche, and, quite frankly, it works. I fail to see how you can sa that the unemployeed should starve, but at the same time, say that the more skilled shouldn't recieve extra benefits from their work. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] Once again I fail to see how "If the country goes up (wealth), so do the people, if it goes down, so do the people." is so difficult to understand. [/B][/QUOTE] "A rising tide lifts all boats"; that's trickle-down economics, and it doesn't work. It was used by the cutthroat super-capitalists to justify their controlling of the vast majoriy of the wealth in the US while the working class lived in poverty. I mean, if only one person owns all the boats, everyone else is screwed. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B]Yes, a person with an easier job would get the same pay as someone with a harder job. Let me explain, No matter how hard the job is, you still need that job done, whether easy or not. [/B][/QUOTE] That doesn't make sense economically. My opportunity costs of taking a higher job (time lost, fatigue, stress, etc) has to be repayed financially in oirder for that job to be worth it. I'm noit going to purposesly be, say, a lawyer, with all the time and stress they put into their profession, and recieve nothing in return. You're inciedibly naive if you think this would work. Besides, it still wouldn't wliminate classes. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B]Specialties only help, because if you have a job that you like, regardless of difficulty, so much the better. [/B][/QUOTE] That's great if all you can do is screw tops on bottles at the coke plant. For those people with skills, it's not as easy as you would have it seem. They get royally screwed under your system. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B]Oh right, Sunyippee, I am a Chinese/American and I know that China is recovering now. I meant when Mao Zedong overthrew the democratic government, not the present government. Anyway, it's good to meet a Chinese nationalist.[/B][/QUOTE] It's funny you should mention China; China is no longer a communist country, not in the original sense of the word. They have a free economy. China's economy is unique to China. China's current government will stay in power as long as they keep the standard of living high; that's their social contract with the people. Why do you think the governmentwas scared to death of SARS? Because if it lowered the quality of life by a substantial defgree, the people would kick them right on out. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] You just called me stupid, but it doesn't count because you didn't "directly" say it... [/B][/QUOTE] Don't kid yourself; if I wanted to call you stupid, i wouldn't do you the luxery of mincing words. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] I most consider myself to be a Marxist/socialist, I was simply throwing out ideas to sound more capitilist because honestly, I don't even care about our argument anymore.[/B][/QUOTE] If you don't care enough about your ideas to support them, can they really be that important? I think communism is a horrible system that borders on pure evil, and I'll argue that point as long as need be. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] Niether I nor you have changed our minds about anything and my approval rating on the OB has just gone down the drain... Over 700 views and Deathbug is the only one arguing with me on a regular basis. I have my opinions, regardless of what you think, and you have yours. Shall we draw this argument to a conclusion, or do you feel I've missed something. [/B][/QUOTE] You had no idea you were arguing with an aspiring law student, did you? I'll quit arguing when I win.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by lava lamp [/i] [B]And for the third time, DeathBug, since I know that closing comment was aimed towards a lovely me, I made it a point in my first post in this topic to say "Just play it safe." I even quoted myself again so that hopefully someone would open their eyes and not mistake my point for something completely unrelated. I think safety is important, but I don't think I'm a "mongrel" for enjoying sex. If you're labeling people based on what they do behind closed doors to please themselves [if they are doing such in a safe, and widely-accepted appropriate manner] then you have much bigger problems than can be dealt with in a post regarding the "right age" for sex. And you were partially right; no one does care about what you think if you are, like you described, a closed-minded and judgemental individual.[/B][/QUOTE] [color=indigo][size=1][font=century]Actually, the comment wasnt' aimed towards you; however, if you feel that it applies to you, by all means, take offense. You assume I would be deragatory towards people for being loose sexually. I don't really care what anyone does on their own time. However, because my personal views are shaped by my personal morals, I believe it is wrong to have sex simply for recreational purposes, with no emotional attachment. I don't care whether you agree with me or not. And, yes, if you are constantly sexing it up, I equate your self-control with that of a randy dog. I find it ironic that you accuse me of close-mindedness, yet you say that what people do behind close doors should be "Widely accepted". Hell, they can break out the whips and chains; I'm happy for them. However, if they're having sex just for sex's sake, I will think less of them. If that makes me close-minded, that's cool; if I have to be closed minded about an issue, I'm glad its' the action that's supposed to bring life to another human being. Cloricus, the Pope is Catholic, not Christian. ^__^[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by White Mage [/i] [B][size=1]\ Relgion, does it really matter to people that much?[/size] [/B][/QUOTE] [color=indigo][size=1][font=century]Yes; yes it does. Ever been to the Middle-East? I'm not going to get off in a tangent about religion; I'm going to bring it right around to support the main point. Face it, the incredibly vast majority of people in the world are religious to various degrees. Sex, seeing as it can have [b]major, long-term, life-altering[/b] consequences, is dealt with in many religions, and many of the rules involve self-scarifice and other complications. As such, sex is a major deal to a person who follows the guidelines of their religion. It gets even better when they live in a cosomopolitan area and recive mixed messages. Even if you're am athiest, you have to take into consideration that heterosexual sex can get the girl pregenant, even with protection. You literally put your entire future on the line for a few minutes of pleasure. For people of all sexual types, diseases are a major concern. So, yeah, sex is a big deal. And, personally, if you're out having sex left and right with no serious thought other than pleasure, then I think you're a mongrel. I'm not going to be a jerk about it or anything, but it will lessen my opinion of you. Nott hat anyone cares what I think. [/size][/color][/font]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]My views on sex are two-fold. On the one hand, I personally, as a Christian, think that sex is a deeply emotional connection that should be shared between two people, ideally a person and their spouse. However, I recognize that many people aren't of the same set of morals as I. So, for them, I reinterate my responsibility kick I said earlier. ^__^ [/color][/font][/size]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B]Deathbug, if you do some research on the internet, you will find that I am not the only one who thinks this.[/B][/QUOTE] I know; tons of people are stupid; what's your point? [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B]Even other capitilists have acknowledged Marx's theories. [/B][/QUOTE] What do you mean "acknowledged"? [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B]There was one major error I noticed in your post. If you do take away the dictators, as you said, then the wealth that sustained them would be distributed evenly among the people. There are many factors in a countries wealth that have not been accounted for in your posts other than government. [/B][/QUOTE] As more factors enter into the equation, retaining stability becomes more difficult, not easier. It's like basic economics: supply and demand is an easy conept. If that's all there was to maintaing a health economy, everyone would have one. However, as you add in more factors, complexity increases and it becomes harder to retain stability. Adding in more factors only makes the house of cards shakier. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B]Resources and trade are two big ones. If you have a resource rich country, like America, I'd think twice before saying that a Marxist government would fail right away.[/B][/QUOTE] In America, I estimate that a Marxist government would fall in under fifteen years, and the entire country would fall into anarchy. That's about half the time it took the Soviet Union to go down the tubes. America got to where it was under the combination of three factors: a working republic, a vibranr economy and a unique national mentality caused by the nation's originating circumstances. Why would you alter a winning formula? Besides, if your system can only function in already-successful areas, than it's not really a winning-system. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] You also put it your post that Thomas Jefferson agreed with private ownership and while he did so, he also wanted government to take as little a part as it could in the economy, which therefore formed his democratic ideas. [/B][/QUOTE] Yes...? This didn't really lead into anything... [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B]You've mentioned several times that he Marx wrote such "crap" as Das Kapital and The Communist Mannefisto. Simply saying "his ideas suck" is a very base arguement.[/B][/QUOTE] ......you did listen to all the times I explained [i]why[/i] I thought his ideas sucked, right? I just got tired of typing them over and over again. Consider "crap" my new shorthand for that. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] You also say that the impoverished cannot advance in class because all the money is hoarded by the government. [/B][/QUOTE] No, I said that the impoverished can't advance in class because there is no place for advancement. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] Doesn't that itself violate Marx's theory of "Abolishment of Class"?[/B][/QUOTE] Sure does; its' the worse version of a bad system to start with. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] A change I could make to make it work more efficiently is everyone gets an equal income, yet has the right to private ownership.[/B][/QUOTE] Won't work; people won't work at more difficult tasks if they wouldn't recieve a higher salary than the ones doing easier jobs. Besides, enterprising people would save their cash and eventually become of a higher class. You'd have basically started the whole economy over with more ineffective rules. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] Let me explain. That change has something in common with capitilism. Careful managers of their money will lead to them eventually having great wealth, while someone foolish might end up homeless.[/B][/QUOTE] How's that different than what we have now? Smart investors end up with more. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] You might be asking "Doesn't that go against Marx's main premise of Abolishment of Class".[/B][/QUOTE] What you've done is taken a single detail of Marx's plan and altered it to the point where it's no longer remotely similar to what Marx envisioned. You're niether a communist or a Marxist, I'm afraid. I'm not quite sure what you are. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] The answer is no because everyone is still sustained by an equal income. [/B][/QUOTE] Like I said, no one would work under those conditions. Would you put in all the time and effort to become a doctor if you could make the same cash as a bag-boy off the streets? [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] I also think that those who don't work shouldn't be paid anything. [/B][/QUOTE] People who don't get work don't get paid now. They get cash from the government to sustain themselves (ideally) long enough to get a new job. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] It's very difficult to imagine a country working together like that, but by getting rid of the lazy, so much the better. Here's the motivation for this, "You either work, or you starve". [/B][/QUOTE] My gosh, that's cutthroat. Even I don't feel that harshly, and I'm socially conservative. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] That might seem similar to America today, but the difference would be no charity organizations to support them. Why should the hard working spend their time helping the lazy when the lazy can't help themselves?[/B][/QUOTE] Dear God...... :laugh: You do realize you're reciting the basic creedo of the cutthroat capitalists of Rockefeller's days? You've done a complete 180! I'm even more successful than I thought... [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] It might sound cruel at first, but it is actually very fair if you think about it. [/B][/QUOTE] See above comment. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B]That's just one way I think Marxism could be improved. [/B][/QUOTE] That's not an improvement; that's so far removed from Marxism/Communism that it's something completely different. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B]Finally, Let me ask you this. Do you believe that his theories are so hopeless that they cannot be changed for the better without sacrificing his main premise?[/B][/QUOTE] Yes; yes they are. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B]If your answer is no, I have another question. If by some miracle of god (as you would put it),[/B][/QUOTE] What does my belief in God have to do with anything? [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] it could be changed, what differences would you have made to his philosophies. [/B][/QUOTE] I'd have made them into capitalist ideals. ^__^ Seriously....I'm not sure what you are anymore. You call youself a Marxist, which is a Communist in denial, yet you reject most of Marx's creedos, and are harsh as a pure Capitalist on social issues. I don't think you're a Socialist... I think you're very confused about what you are. Perhaps you should reconsider your position.[/color][/font][/size]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by lava lamp [/i] [B]As for the predictable, "What about sex being a display of the ultimate affection?": It just so happens I enjoy showing the ultimate affection to a lot of people. How considerate of me. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=indigo][font=century][size=1]So do dogs; what's your point? Sex brings the possibility of a great deal of consequences. Consequences create adversity. Adversity tests character. Character is relative to morals. Not everyone shares the same morals, so not everyone shares the same views about sex. I don't see why the whole issue is complicated; if you have to ask if you're ready for sex, you aren't. Simple. [/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]I'm noticing a trend here; most people develope a hatred of a song when it is constantly played on the radio to the point that you can't stand it. There are no songs that I can't stand, really; when there's something on the radio I don't like, I change the channel. Fascinating concept.[/size][/color][/font]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by lava lamp [/i] [B]Being gay, I can't reproduce. Food for thought. [/B][/QUOTE] [color=indigo][size=1][font=century]Not really. All it means is that you don't have to consider the possibility that your actions might result in the birth of another human being. (Assuming, of course, that you never have sex with a woman) That's a pretty "duh" statment, but, like I said, it's not exactly a lot to think about. The proper age to have sex is when you can deal with all of the possible consequences, and are ready to take the responsibility that comes with said consequences. This includes the obvious: prequenacies, diseases, and emotional complications. [/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][font=century][size=1] I'll just address this point-by-point... Yes, I took it for granted I would have bad teachers at some point in high school. My school has seven periods. I could have had as many as fifty-two different teachers in four years. Odds are, one of them wouldn't be up-to-snuff. I think that it would be naieve of me to think I would have only great teachers; I would have lost contact with reality with that attitude, rather than just accepting I'll end up with a bad teacher at some point, then moving on with my life. Yes, there are more mediocre students; however, most students have potential. The next Einstien's interests in Pysics may have been crushed by an apathetic teacher who wrote off the entire class. It's nothing new to say that most students are mediocre; ten-percent of the world has been supporting the other ninety-percent for a while now. I see the harm that the NCLB act could inflict, but I also see the benefits if it actually achieves what it's trying to do. in my opinion, it can go either way. I'd have rather waited to get more concrete and proven legislation, myself, but I'm not a policy maker...yet... When I said "higher education", I was speaking of high school. Apparently that is the incorrect usage. I can't comment on college very well, having not attended. Ask me next December about college. I am aware that a large part of my beliefs are based on my experiences; my experiences are the only ones I completely trust. I would argue that 3/4 is too high a number to place on unmotivated students, but my data is all based on my own experience. Motivation is a hard thing to quantify nationaly. Some situations are black and white. I'm aware that a great many of the more complicated issues have gray areas, but it is knowledge about a subject that produces the gray area. I'm not really an expert in education, having not given national education systems much thought, at least in this manner. So, its' a black and white issue for me unless I become informed-enough in it to see the gray area. The arguments for and against the NCLB act that I've read have actually produced a gray area for me. If you wanted to talk about something else, say....limiting the ammount juries may award plaintiffs in punative damage lawsuits....that's a gray area right there, and because I study it, I can tell you why. Knowledge produces the gray area; I don't have a lot on this subject, so I don't see as much of a gray area as you do. You must admit that your circumstances in which you were failed (I'll admit it) were a bit unique. I've never heard an advanced student say that the teacher "Failed them". The only people I hear saying that are those that didn't even bother. I just dislike that phrase. I think I'm done clarifying myself....I'm gonna' go play Smash Bros. Melee, or maybe Soul Caliber II. [/color][/font][/size]

[color=indigo][font=century][size=1] [QUOTE](*I'm pretty sure you're a girl, but even if you are, I still love you for this! ^^)[/QUOTE] I'm not a girl. ^^; Why'd you think I was a girl? Backup Soldier can't revive monsters with effects, so it actually can't help Amy. I'd forgotten about Amazoness Paladin. I did remember Giant Germ, but GG wants to be destroyed in battle. The two that can be special summoned will deal 2000 damage, whereas Amy will only deal 1200. I was inspired to write my review after viewing the whole Amy/Cannon Soldier debate at another site. I realized that Amy had tons of support for a couple of sets now, and only needed the proper cards selected for her. Not every card has enough support to form an entire deck around them. [/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]The cards discussed thus far have generally been of two types: either really, really good cards that could go into any deck, or cards that are devistating in an obvious type of deck. I thought Id' try something a little different, and try a truely underrated and potentially devistating card. (Snodin will love this..) Today's card: Amazon Archer. LON-032 Amazon Archer EARTH Warrior Offer 2 monsters on your side of the field as a Tribute to inflict 1200 points of Direct Damage to your opponent's Life Points. Monsters used for a Tribute Summon or that are offered as Tributes due to other cards' effects are excluded 4/1400/1000 Now, most people look at her and instantly write her off, saying, correctly, that Cannon Soldier is easier to use. True, it does take more skill to use AA effectivly; after all, she requires two monsters, which is harder to come by in a duel. However, AA has a major advantage over Cannon Soldier; she draws support from three different series of cards. Cannon Soldier gets boosted by Dark type aids and Machine aids. AA gets aids from Warrior aids, Earth aids, and Amazoness aids. What does this mean? AA is a lot more versitile. In fact, you can build an entire deck around her and her effect, and be rather effective. Let's go over her pluses and cons... Pros: [list][*]Sanganable [*]Ratable [*]Witchable [*][/list]Burn effect Cons: [list][*]Weak stats [*][/list]Requires two monsters Now, how can Amazon Archer be most effectivly used, in order to play on her strength and make up for her weaknesses? First, back her up with that burner-fodder extrordinair, Scapegoat. In one turn with a single Scapegoat, Amy deals out 2400 damage. All three Scapegoat cards can effectivly end the game, should you be fortunate enough to draw them in quick sucession. Second, her searchability: Witch and Sangan are obvious choices, but what about Giant Rat? Giant Rat would work perfectly in an Amy deck, allowing you to get her on the field more quickly. Giant Rat, however, can summon two notable monsters, as well: Injection Fairy Lily and eXiled Force. IFL adds needed muscle to the deck, and eXiled Force is great as monster removal. Both are candidates to be comnsidered. While we're on the subject of Earth monsters, another pair of potential monsters for an Amy deck are the Rock Spirit and Fiber Jar. Fiber gives you your Goats back, to be used yet again. The Rock Spirit can be special summoned for muscle, as well as to get more monsters on the field for Amy fodder. You probably shouldn't use both of these in the same deck, though. On the subject of Jars, Cyber Jar is a good choice for Amy, getting more monsters on the field and goats in the hand to sacrifice. There's one last notable Earth monster that GR can fetch in addition to Amy: Pyramid Turtle. Though that would be a bit lame, and I strong recommend against it. To carry on, Amy's Warrior potential is almost unparalleled. she can work with the Marauding Captain, Calling Reinforcements, Fusion Sword Marasamu Blade, The wArrior Returning Alive, and others. I personally recommend Calling Reinforcements as a deck thinner, and Marauding Captain for further swarmage and protection. If you're running Warrior support, you can also tech a few other Warriors into the deck. Good choices are Goblin Attack Force to provide muscle, and DD Warrior Lady for monster removal. Also, this is a possibility, though I would strongly recommened testing it thorougly, if you run a pair of Captains and Cyber Jar to aid your Amazons, you could try adding a TerrorKing Archfiend; the odds that he'll be special-summoned are high with those other monsters, and once again, he provides the muscle that Amy lacks. Finally, Amy recieves Amazon support. There are three cards that work well with any Amazons: Amazoness Spellcaster, Ammazoness Pet Tiger, Ammazoness Archers, and Dramatic Rescue. Of the four, the Pet Tiger is definatly the most useful, providing an attack boost and temporary protection. (He's also Witchable, Ratable and Sanganable.) Amazoness Spellcaster is the second best, providing a temporary attack boost to Amy. She can pretty much take out anything that can take her out if the need arises. A bit situational, though. Amazoness archers and Dramatic rescue both have excellant effects...if you can pull them off. Situational? Yes. However, they are definatly worth experimenting with. Finally, the last cards to consider: Change of Heart and Snatch steal. These guys are almost shoo-ins; they could work incredibly well in most decks, and can allow Amy to tribute opposing monsters. Basically, Amazon Archer is a highly-searchable card with a solid effect that has tons of potential support, if you are willing to use her correctly. She can pwn in her own deck, in addition to being an obvious tech in Warrior and Earth decks. If anyone can think of support for Amy that I've missed, please tell me.[/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]Well, Bobba fett said what I intended to say, and probably said it better than I would have. Being told to pull up your pants ain't exactly the same as having your possession siezed at gunpoint, is it? And dang it, pull up your darn pants and comb that hair![/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][font=century][size=1]Ahh, ATHF. Fryloc is the man. Iv'e seen several episodes. At worst, it's insipid, but at best, it's hilarious. I'm thinking of picking up the first season DVD set. (Only $18...)[/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]Looking back on what I wrote, it was not the clearest thing in the world....It seemed so beautiful when I was on my caffine high! What could have happened? First, I'll state for the record that I have no real motive for typing this, other than self-expression. While I have been burdened with a useless non-teaching stump or two in my educational career, I really don't feel any grudges against them; I learned the material on my own when it became apparent that they would be no help, and I passed my courses all right. I took it for granted that I would get a lame duck teacher at some point in my life, and figured you just have to work with what you have. In that sense, I might be biased; if I can overcome a crappy teacher and still do al right in the class, I'm not that sympathetic to those that don't. Now, the NCLB act; I'll admit handily that I did'nt know anything about the act's legislation until this thread was started. The accusations that were flying, that the act would close the school if a student failed, seemed so incredibly counter-productive that I couldn't believe such legislation would pass Congress. So I looked it up to find out what was going on. With such recent knowlege regarding the act, I really am in no position to argue semantics. My opinion on the legislation is this: President Bush was trying to do what he and his advisors thought best. Everyone wants to improve public education. Whether or not what the administration did actually would be successful remains to be seen. (Admittedly, I'm a bit cautious when people instantly take to ragging on the President's actions. With Bush-bashing being the fashion, it pays to consider whether what is being assaulted is an action, or an action [u]done by Bush[/u].) Now, my views on education. I speak only as a student, and not as one with experience in the teaching profession. My views on education is that higher education is the shared responsibility of the student and the teacher. (Parents need to be heavily involved in early stages, but as time goes on, they're needed less and less.) A teacher must be trying to teach and a student must be trying to learn. However, in this relationship, the student has the more powerful position. This is because the student is capable of learning without the teacher. Whether or not the student chooses to learn is a far more important choice that what the teacher decides to do. I'm not sure why my earlier post comes off as anti-teacher, when I historically side with teachers. I place more responsibility on students, as a rule. A teacher that say the "Students don't want to learn" is a bad teacher, emphasis on [i]student[b]s[/b][/i]. Plural. I'm not talking the odd unmotivated slacker student, I'm talking their students in general. As for the phrase "failed me"; I simply cannot, on my priciples, condone the use of that phrase, at least not as much as it is used. It indicates a lack of responsibility for the outcome, and because, to my way of thinking, anyway, the student has more of an impact on their education than their teachers. The student takes the tests and does the projects. If they do good work and understand the subject matter, they should not fail. Perhaps it is merely my own personality, but I can't stand it when students say that. If you fail, it is most likely your responsibility. You recount a personal incident, where it seems by what you said that you were well-aquainted with the subject material, but you left outt he most important detail: the basis on which you recieved a failing grade. I'll gladly admit that I am biased against that phrase, because the students I always hear using it are the slackers who didn't put effort into the class in the first place. tHe whole phrase reeks of a lack of responsibility for the results of your education. My biggest pet peeve is responsuibilty, and how no one takes it any more. I do not believe I said that a student should take control of their class; I said they should take control of their education. tHe materials are there, even if the teacher is apathetic. More than likely, they've got a book and the class outline, and more than likely, they can procure one if they don't. I do still believe that a student who "isn't challenged" has no excuse for not passing. You have to pass your easier classes to move onto more difficult ones, even if it's boring to do so. There is some personal bias in that, because I "wasn't chalenged" for two years until I changed school systems and got some recognition and relocation. As for the lawsuit statements....gah, what was I drinking when I wrote that crap? I was feeling mean-spirited; please disregard that garbage, and proceed to flog me until I get the point. Basically...I feel that education is the shared responsibility of the teachers and the students. I aklao feel that my earlier posts were disorganized, mean-spirited crap. Thanks for calling me on it instead of letting me continue to make a fool of myself. ^^;;[/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]I'm in a hurry, so I'll make this quick and to-the-point. In Demon decks and Archfiend decks, TKA is one bad Mamajamma. If you just use a pair of Archfiend Soldiers, don't bother with TKA. Now, there is one possible exception; if you use many of the following cards, you may tttempt to tech TKA into your deck: [list][*]Marauding Captain (2) [*]Cyber Jar [*]Painful Choice [*]Axe of Despair [*]Archfiend Soldier[/list] If you use most or all of those, TKA can be playable even without a Demon deck. The LP payment is too trival to worry about; it's not like TKA will be around long enough to really cause problems. I rate Terrorking Archfiend a solid three. Monsters that require their own deck usually get a two point five from me, but because Terrorking can be teched into a few other decks using the right cards, his rating goes up. Still tricky to utilize effectivly, he's a real devil on the field.[/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]You know, looking at it objectivly, without our vision being clouded by nostalgia...Today's Saturday morning cartoons are better than those of yesteryear. Most of them have higher production values and more complex storylines. Even those that are supposed to push a product are more advanced and sophisticated than the product-pushers of the '80's and '90's. There are exceptions, of course, but on the whole, I think today's kids definatly have it better than we did in terms of toonage. Cartoons I enjoyed: [list][*]Ninja Turtles [*]Garfield and Friends [*]Eek! the Cat [*]X-Men [*]Spider-Man (Sigh...it turned to crap after the first season...)[/list] That's all I can remember, for some reason...Sweetreyes listed several others. ....You used MC Hammer to prove a point? Dude, that show sucked...[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i] [B][color=violet] Purhaps Bush should forget about the Moon, Mars and WMDs and try to raise teacher's pay. [/color] [/B][/QUOTE] [color=indigo][size=1][font=century]I'm sorry, but that's really an unfair statement; teachers are notorious for being underpayed, and the situation has been this way for a while. To place all the blame on President Bush is to place blame on him for events that have been transpiring before he was even in office. (Or govenor of Texas.) One could just as easily ask why President Clinton did nothing regarding teachers' salaries during his term, when the US experienced unprecented economic growth. seems like that would have been the perfect time to address the issue. (Then again, I asked the same question about NASA; why cut their funding when there's more money than ever?) President Clinton was the poster-child for squandered opportunities... Whether or not you agree with what President Bush did with the NCLB bill, you cannot accuse him of ignoring the issue. We all basically want the same things for the education system, regardless of parties. President Bush is trying to do it the way he believes will work, as will the next president. While I have several reservations about the bill myself, I feel better with itt han had there been no legislation at all. Granted, blaming President Bush for everything is so all the rage nowadays, sometimes logic doesn't enter in. As for your cousin's troubles, I believe cirriculum is determined on a state and county level, not the federal level. If she is in a bad way, it would be your govenor who is to blame.[/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] Alright than, in an effort not to be lazy and to redeem myself, I'll try a more reasonable approach. First off, Marxism, in theory, is only an idea for the economy.[/B][/QUOTE] No; Marx's original ideas applied to the entire government, especialy considering the fact that you're basically giving the private sector to the government. Government has to be majorly involved no matter how you slice it. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B]In true politics, it is run by a dictator. [/B][/QUOTE] A Communist leader has to be a dictator by default, because he's breaking the most basic clause in the social contract: right to property. The idea that the government's most important role is to protect the property of the governed has been around since John Locke, in the...I wanna' say 1600's. Thomas Jefferson was a great admirer of Locke, and transposed that ideal into the Declaration of Independance. In a communist government, the government has to take and redistribute all property in the name of class destruction. Therefore the right is violated. The right to property was recognized by monarchies and other governments even before the right to life was. Even Machiavelli, who was (unfairly) remembered for his rather cutthroat ideas on politics, said that you could kill a man's father, but must never touch his inheritance. Right to property is a big deal, and communism violates it. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B]The main leaders, like Stalin and Mao Zedong have complete control of every aspect of government, therefore, I believe that some philosophies of Marx differ from that of Communism. [/B][/QUOTE] Okay, this right here is really, really frustrating. --; Marx wrote the communist Mannifesto, the basic foundation of communist parties. Marx's ideals [b]were[/b] communism. I don't know why you just can't admit that. (Maybe, if you think communism is a bad thing, and Marx's ideas were almost entirely communist...he had bad ideas?! Gasp!) [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B]As I've stated before, communist dictators stretches the doctrine of the theories of Marx, because his theories were not totally clear. [/B][/QUOTE] Marx wrote, I believe (but am not sure) at least three books (Das Kapital and another), and the Communist Mannifesto. His ideas were clear. They just sucked. Communist dictators didn't become dictators until they were in power. They used Marx's ideas to sweet-talk the masses into recognizing their government as legitimate. (And military force to take care of those who wouldn't.) By the time the people realized how screwed they were, it was too late. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B]They've used communism as an economic base, poorly I might add.[/B][/QUOTE] No, communism is a command economy; they used it exactly as it was intended. In a command economy, the government makes all decisions and estimates regarding production. Most of the time, as you might imagine, they get it wrong, and economic chaos results. You know what one of the Soviet Union's most annoying problem was? They kept running out of toilet paper. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B]Here's why I believe that communism differs from Marxism.[/B][/QUOTE] They're the same thing; see earlier rant. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] Marxism is about the abolishment of different classes, such as rich or poor. [/B][/QUOTE] So's Communism. (Gasp!) Did it ever occurr to you that perhaps the reason some people get rich is because they work hard, save, and invest wisely? If I know that I'm never going to advance economically, you think Im' going to bust my arse at law school? No, I'm going to get a cashier's job at Best Buy and waste ther est of my life away. If you take away the possibility of advancement, you take away any incentive to produce. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B]Present communists do not follow this rule, for the Communist Party are rich while their people are living in poverty.[/B][/QUOTE] Let's examine that a minute. If you remove the dictators (which make up an incredibly small percent of the actual population), everyone is in poverty. But there are no classes. Everyone is at the same level of poverty. Wouldn't that be Marxism, according to your statements? And if you add the dictators back into the picture, then you've got all the wealth into a few peoples' hands; isn't that the result of unchecked capitalism? [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] Now on to my own theory. The main weakness of a Marxism state of country is lack of motivation and ambition, correct? Well, as Deathbug said before, Capitilism has been altered before.[/B][/QUOTE] Actually, what I said was, the US and most other nations aren't true capitalists anymore. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B] I see no reason why Marxism cannot be the same, an alteration in its political base while retaining its economic ideals. [/B][/QUOTE] I do; politics and economics are intertwined. Remember what happened when the US didn't intervene in the economy? Concentration of wealth, and later depression. The basis of communism can't be altered; it requires a strong government to "work", and I use the term loosely. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CB Shin [/i] [B]Simply put, I agree with Marx's philosophy on the abolishment of classes, which does not mean sacrificing one's individuality. [/B][/QUOTE] Screw individuality; if you want the abolishment of classes, you [b]will[/b] get a dictator. Every time. It's simple: classes are basically devided into "Who has the most stuff". To eliminate classes, everyone has to have the same amount of stuff, and no one can ever have more than anybody else. Since there's only so much stuff availible at any given time (wealth can be created, but not on demand), you have to take everybody's stuff and divy it up among everybody. Once you violate a person's right to property, you are a dictator. Scenario: Oky, we're taking everyone's stuff for divvying; but there's someone who doesn't agree with this idea. They refuse to give their stuff up, for whatever reason. What do you do? Well, you can't very well leave them alone, because then they'd have more than everybody else, and therefore would be upper class. You would have to use force with anyone who didn't agree with your ideals in any way, possibly lethal force. You see how this doesn't work? But let's say that you get that ar; there are no classes, and everyone who disagrees with you has seen the light, in either sense of the phrase. Now what? Well, everyone has to get back to work, but you can't exactly pay them, or at least not differently. So, to ensure no one saves their wages and thus has more than anyonee lse, we're going to pay you directly with resources. Food, clothing, etc. Everyone gets exactly the same no matter their ability or need, because to give any more to anyone would great a high class. So, everyone stays exactly where they are with no hope of advancement for their entire life. And if you get more stuff, we either have to take it from you or kill you to maintain status quo. Still sound like a good idea?[/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]I agree with what was said before; there's no actual need for a Trigun sequel. The most I think would be warrented would be a possible spin-off, but there's no characters that rate their own series, and [spoiler]most of them died, anyway.[/spoiler] There's really no reason for one. However, the Trigun manga is far more in-depth and lengthy than the anime, so if you want more Vash action, there's a good place.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=century][size=1][color=indigo]Therein lies the interesting thing about [i]Tenchi Muyo![/i]; namely, Tenchi is as interesting as watching grass grow. He's bland, boring, and ocassionally annoying. They never really explained how, once he piqued a girl's interest, he managed to hold it. Really, you'd think Ryoko wouldn't go for Tenchi at all, because they're simply too different. You'd think Ayeka wouldn't because he has little ambition. Yet they do, mostly because the series would'nt work without that condition. But, seriously, he should have choosen a girl a while ago. Until [i]Tenchi in Tokyo[/i], I thought he might be gay. I mean, really, not to ever show interest in one of the girl at this point really stretches things. I always thought Tenchi needed a foil character, like maybe another cousin, who would react how an actual guy would react; he'd be nervous or intimidated, sure, but he would actually develope a crush on one of the girls, and pursue it. I'd like to see that, particularly how said girl would react to another "average guy's" advances.[/color][/font][/size]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by scrmngfangrl [/i] [B]yeah, im still waiting for mine, an crap, i wanna bite his lip some time in the middle an make him bleed as he struggles with the chai...ns...0.o; [/B][/QUOTE] [color=indigo][size=1][font=century]If you really want him to kiss you, you probably shouldn't tell him about the biting...or the chains...unless he's into that sort of thing, I guess... Weirdest post I've read all morning. ^__^[/color][/size][/font]

[color=indigo][font=century][size=1]I've lived on Fort Brag, Georgia, and on MacDill in Tampa, Florida. Iv'e aso lived in three different military bases in Germany, where the only English-speaking establishments were the military base itself. It may simply be a difference of opinion, but I thought they were pretty spiffy places to live,m yself.[/size][/color][/font]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=century]16 Although he looked like little more than a vertically challenged teenager, Simon recognized it as Von?s human disguise. ?What are you doing here, Von?? Von sighed. ?Listen, there?s trouble, and Lady Rena will be mad at me for telling you, but there?s an unknown ship on this planet.? Simon raised an eyebrow. ?What? Unknown ship? You mean more aliens?? Von nodded. ?Yeah; we think they?re bounty hunters. You?re in potential danger.? The human scoffed. ?More than already? In case you weren?t listening, my planet?s on the chopping block!? Von shook his head. ?Not about that! Right now, there are bounty hunters in this community!? Simon raised an eyebrow. ?What?? Von sighed. ?We assume they?re bounty hunters because their ship had no registration signal. They landed and then dropped off of our radar. We don?t know what they?re here for, but we think it might be you. The Sol system.? The boy shrugged. ?Big whoop. Another alien after me. Still don?t care.? He reached the curb and pressed the button on the cross signal. Von just shook his head. ?What?s wrong with you?! How can you not care about this?? Simon sighed heavily. ?Look, Von, I don?t want this. This whole mess is way too much for one person to deal with, especially me. How would you feel if this crap all fell to you, and you couldn?t even tell anyone or ask for help?? Von thought about that. ?I don?t know; I guess I?d be upset?? ?Now you get it,? Simon said. ?It?s nothing against you; you seem like a nice lizard guy. I?m just going to step out of this, and whatever happens, happens.? The signal changed to green, and Simon crossed the intersection; Von, still not convinced, followed him. ?Yeah, but-? A garbage truck approaching the intersection didn?t slow. Yelling, Simon leapt back, pushing Von as well. ?Hey! The light?s red, moron!!? The truck suddenly skidded to a stop. The side door opened; there was no driver. Simon blinked. ?What? What?s going on?? Suddenly, a black wire, about a dime?s thickness in diameter, extended from the dashboard of the truck. It wrapped around Simon?s left leg and pulled him into the vehicle with surprising force. Simon let out a yelp and grabbed at the ground, but there was nothing to grab on to. Von got to his feet. ?Simon!? He ran forward to help his friend, but a second wire emerged from the truck, easily snagging the much-lighter Von. The pair was pulled into the truck?s cab with such speed that no one around noticed. The light changed to green, and the truck pulled away. Inside the cab, the wires wrapped around Simon and Von, strapping them against the seats. ?Screw this,? Simon spat. ?I?m getting? us out, now!? He closed his eyes, and tried to activate the Sol system?s cybernetics. He felt the cool feeling spread over him, but before it could implement, he felt a harsh, burning pain. ?Agh! Damn it, what was that!?? An electronic voice emanated from the truck?s radio. ?Attempt to activate the cybernetics attached to you, and a progressively stronger electric shock shall incapacitate you. Do not resist.? Von?s eyes grew wide with surprise as his holographic disguise dropped. ?Who are you?? ?That is none of your concern. Please remain calm; you will arrive at your destination soon.? Simon glared. ?Tell us what?s going on!? ?That is not necessary at the present time. You shall be informed at a later time.? The pair was silent as the truck continued its course. It eventually came to a closed-down grocery store in an otherwise functional strip mall. It rounded the turn to the back, and pulled up next to the large deliver hanger. The doorway opened, as did the door to the truck. The electronic voice said, ?Please ext the vehicle in a calm fashion.? Simon spat. ?There?s no way in hell I?m getting out of this truck for god-knows-what unless you tell me what?s going on!? ?You have the Sol system, and it belongs to me. Exit the vehicle.? Simon felt a small jolt from the cables that entrapped him; the negative reinforcement, combined with his curiosity regarding the last statement, prompted his exit. Von followed. Tybalt was crouched on the roof of the grocery, watching the procession with interest. He had left the ship, only to find that it was stored within this Earth food seller. If SAU-7 and Tazer were searching for the Sol system, and he wished to keep it on Earth, it made no sense to leave their base. They were skilled, but compared to him, they were nothing. They would not take the system off of this planet, nor would they endanger his mission; he would make sure of that.[/color][/size][/font]