eleanor

[quote name='Allamorph' date='21 August 2010 - 07:15 PM' timestamp='1282432559' post='699713'] [FONT=Calibri]So basically you're telling us that you formed your 'circle of friends' before you knew who you'd selected. Hunh.[/FONT] [/quote] lol mte, but it happens to everyone. form friend group, there is one friend everyone hates.

Lol I see no harm talking about something like this here. If she annoys you that much, there is a 95% chance she will continue to annoy you even if you have a talk about it with her. Anyways, seeing as how you never even liked her to begin with, she was just "tolerable," I don't see much basis for a great friendship here. Then again I'm really ******* picky when it comes to friends, so if I don't click with someone right away and think they're awesome I don't bother. Her actions come from something deeper than "she's just an annoying person" and unless you want to be one of those once-in-a-lifetime friends I'd just end it.

[quote name='CaNz' date='16 August 2010 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1282014589' post='699517'] well... i thought it was pretty dang good eleanor! i wish i had any talent to shirk away. [/quote] just remember that success is 90% hard work 5% luck and 5% talent. trufax

I sketched today for the first time in a looong while. I wish I could get really, really into drawing again and actually master colors, but I guess I don't have the drive anymore, which is funny because in middle school drawing cartoons consumed my life and I probably did 2-4 hours every day. For some reason I just stopped early in HS and never got into it like that again :'( [img]http://i33.tinypic.com/ick7zs.jpg[/img]

My Liverpool boys played very well today :')))))))))))))) [img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l77dfcmW941qclgoko1_500.jpg[/img]

Don't take 4 shots of tequila in a row.

[quote name='PiroMunkie' date='02 August 2010 - 02:51 AM' timestamp='1280731866' post='698533'] [color="#A0522D"][font="Arial"]He's [i]just now[/i] sounding creepy to you?[/font][/color] [/quote] i loled irl also NGL, having your friends there could have been intimidating. I wouldn't have really liked it tbh

[quote name='CaNz' date='31 July 2010 - 06:47 PM' timestamp='1280616479' post='698372'] i disagree with this. most of my family, (people living in northern CA, NY, WA, and NV believe its just another ploy to trump Hispanics. they dont really livenext to the problem though... so i figure they get that from the media... which i think is a huge factor in making this a race issue as well. Also I have a few Hispanic(i am not that popular but i do make some) friends. all of them are legal citizens by birth or green card, they all seem to think the law is more of a preventative measure.though they do point out how this is always going to be a racial issue, and that they would dislike being pulled over and questioned... but since they have proof of being a citizen they don't mind showing it. the issue spans farther than just white people ignoring it and Mexicans reminding them of the racial tension that exists. i think it is people who constantly inject racism into the equation that we are forced to take extraordinary measures in order to seem impartial. If that is the case... i say lets play your rules. we treat everyone like an illegal immigrant. [/quote] We are both sort of arguing from personal knowledge, so no one can really "win" this argument, although I'm more inclined to believe that more minorities would see racism/discrimination in the law than whites. People who "constantly inject racism into the equation" oftentimes have good bits of truth in their argument, imo. Which is my point. I know many of you might think I'm trying to make racism the biggest issue, but living in a southern mostly-white area where people refuse to believe racism even plays a part in the law has annoyed me and I'm just trying to say that in this case there are issues of racism involved, not that it's the biggest factor or element. [quote name='James' date='01 August 2010 - 02:36 AM' timestamp='1280644586' post='698418'] [font="Palatino Linotype"]The only question I'd ask, though, is that if Gavin's example is an indicator of what breeds racism...then who do you blame for that? Nigerian scammers or non-Nigerian people who try to avoid Nigerian scammers? (And who, in doing so, probably end up avoiding many perfectly innocent, above-board taxi drivers).[/font] [/quote] Well I'm not trying to lay blame on anyone, I'm simply pointing out the problem, which obviously is not the most intelligent thing for me to do without offering more follow-up opinions/insights but hey [quote name='James' date='01 August 2010 - 02:36 AM' timestamp='1280644586' post='698418'] [font="Palatino Linotype"]The difficulty I have with this whole discussion, though, is that the definition of the word "racism" is being gradually expanded by various groups in an effort to either stifle certain kinds of debate, or in an effort to provide cover for certain kinds of apologists. To go back to the fear of Islam in Europe: this is often cited (especially by the usual ambassadors of extreme political correctness) as "Islamophobia", which itself now seems to have become intrinsically tied in with racism. The attempt to link these two very different points of view is very deliberate, but also very misleading. I say this because it should seem obvious to say that "Islam" has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity. The worst you could say is that Islam is bound up with nationality - but even then, you would be betraying significant ignorance about Islam. To be against Islam is not to be against the Middle East or to be against a particular ethnicity - it is, rather, to be opposed to a [i]religion[/i] and a set of [i]religious ideas[/i] or even cultural ideas.[/font] [/quote] Yes, of course race and religion are two different things. But when they happen to be highly correlative, people tend to lump the two together and it creates prejudice towards the race. It's not very rational or true, but it's how groups of people operate. The problem is that racism is the obvious results of such things such as classism or phobia of certain religions, cultures etc. etc. And in the end, that racism is still racism. It may be born from some other prejudice or phobia but the end result is the same. There is small window of opportunity for people who are becoming prejudiced to act according to the knowledge that religion/etc. =/= race, and most people miss it. And even if they do acknowledge it, it's hard for them to act according to it. It becomes easier for them to tie everything to race. Bad? Wrong? Stupid? Unrational? Yes, but I'm not going to believe it's not true. [quote name='AvalonAngel' date='01 August 2010 - 09:45 AM' timestamp='1280670348' post='698440'] [font="Garamond"]But those who single out racism as the single most issue regarding this law would be thinking rather laser-focused, wouldn't they? As James said, using Racism as a basis for arguement really does nothing. Any sort of discrimination towards a people has been happening for centuries upon centuries. Even within the Caucasian people, there have been predjudices using religion as a base. People will find something to use as some sort of superior trait that separates them from other people. It's human nature to try and do so. But getting back to the immigration issue, as many others have said, the law makes no specific mention towards the Latin-American people as being the only ones needing to show their papers. Now, looking at the demographics within the Southwest region, of course Latin Americans would be the primary group of people that would be targets of "random citizenship checks." But does this constitute racism? No. Now....pulling a Latin American person over for speeding and telling them to show their papers or you will deport their *insert hispanic racial slur here* asses back to wherever they came from is quite racist.[/font] [/quote] I feel like everyone in this thread thinks I'm against this law because I think it's blatantly racist. I don't think that. I'm mainly saying that will exacerbate racial problems, and so I think the federal government should step in and do something about the immigration process as a whole. (And do I think a fair share of the law's supporters are racist? yes. But that has nothing to do with the literature of the law itself.) And just because something has been a certain way for a long time doesn't mean it's OK, or that it's inevitable and we shouldn't fight it. haha... I am guessing that was not what you meant though I already know the law doesn't make specific mentions towards hispanics, but obviously, as I said, problems will get worse. And like I said, I don't think the law itself is racist. edit: HAHA. I wrote this while reading it to myself in a spanish accent.... I need to stop watching spanish footballer youtube interviews... o god

[quote name='Gavin' date='31 July 2010 - 05:30 PM' timestamp='1280611820' post='698367'] [font="Tahoma"][size="2"] Regarding the told to be careful around Nigerian cabbies, there's a two-fold reason there, one is the perception of fraud, particularly identity-theft, perpetuated by Nigerian asylum seekers which you read about in the newspapers or hear on the news not infrequently and the second is that they have a tendency to overcharge patrons and can become quite unpleasant if confronted in this regard. [/size][/font] [/quote] therein lie the seeds of racism and more support for my economy breeds racism argument that reply wasn't directed at you btw, it was a general statement

I've heard similar stories from people who have studied abroad/backpacked through Europe, concerning prejudice towards blacks and Chinese people in Spain. Don't know much about racial relations in the UK, but even recently (like two days ago?) at one of the Liverpool FC friendlies there was a problem because the opposing team's fans were making monkey noises because of a black player on LFC. If that happened in the US some serious **** would have gone down. [strike]TBQH I am sometimes concerned with any racism/prejudice I will encounter when I study abroad in Europe this fall[/strike] As much as I drag the word "racism" into this topic (unashamedly), the USA is not some devilish land of racists when compared to most of the world. Since the US really IS the melting pot of the world, we do have more problems concerning racial relations, and while a lot of racism still exists we are not significantly worse than the rest of the world. It's just that other countries have more homogeneity, and therefore have less problems to deal with. So while many citizens of the world can look down upon the US, they probably just don't realize that if their country had a similar mix of races they'd be going through the same problems. My problem is when people insist that racism either doesn't exist/has nothing to do with a situation (when it does, in one way or another). And I find that that issue itself is deeply affected by race. Ask a group of minorities, and most of them will say the Arizona law is tainted with racism. Ask a group of white people, and a fair share of them will say it has nothing to do with racism. Neither side is being stupid, it's just that both sides grew up with very different outlooks on life/racial relations, and that is usually the hardest kind of personal experience to overcome.

[quote name='CaNz' date='30 July 2010 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1280547725' post='698316'] i highly doubt it will make more prejudice. people who are stupid enough to believe certain races are superior dont need a law in order to feel this way. [/quote] You give too much credit to people edit: although my response to Chibi was kind of moot of me to say. It's not really the law that will cause problems, but like I said in my first post, it's economy that creates prejudices many times. The law will just exacerbate those prejudices.

[quote name='chibi-master' date='30 July 2010 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1280518975' post='698295'] Are you going to pretend that racism has a big part in this law? There's almost no other ethnic group that crosses the border, and because the group is a minority, everyone opposed to the law is going to scream and cry about supposed racism. I don't disagree that there are people that think that way, but I'd like to not have them pinned to this law. I'm okay with the law. I lived on the Mexican border for most of my life and I do not like illegal immigration. There are thousands of Mexicans waiting their turn patiently to get legalized, and then some impatient people decide to hop a fence and cause trouble for the patient ones. Why should the people that jump the border get in the country before the ones waiting for citizenship? Why should they get to take up jobs and take advantage of hospitals without paying taxes that the lagalized immigrants and born citizens have to pay? If it keeps those that get in illegally out of here, I'm supportive of this law. [/quote] Except that the consequences of this law will certainly include racial issues and more prejudices, so yes, racism is a big part of this law. Anyone who says otherwise isn't thinking very broadly. As to your 2nd argument, I've already addressed that.

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud' date='29 July 2010 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1280462234' post='698263'] [color=indigo] One of the biggest problems with passing any law in the US is getting past the crybaby special interest groups that cry discrimination and racism regardless of the bill. It is a real mind**** that is constantly targeted by our media. I actually think that this is part of the reason why so many other "first world" nations think our country is so racist. Growing up I sure thought the US was full of them. However, after doing quite a bit of international traveling, I have realized that we have our fair share of bigots, but damn, some of these so called progressive European countries trump us one hundred times over. [/color] [/quote] Yeah but are we also going to pretend like racism and discrimination have nothing to do with this law?

[quote name='AvalonAngel' date='29 July 2010 - 02:44 PM' timestamp='1280429080' post='698221'] [font="Garamond"] But for every few good apples, there are a few rotten ones too. The amount of burden that illegals put on the local, state and federal goverments really skews the government aid systems. People using American Emergency Rooms like local clinics, Faking SSN's to get welfare and unemployment benefits, and getting their children into American schools by being born in American Hospitals (which guarantees you citizenship? WTF) takes away the benefits from American citizens who are in the country legally and have had been having problems. What good is government aid if any old person can loophole the system and get benefits from the government?[/font][/quote] I understand people who argue that illegal immigrants put a burden on local government, but what's with the WTF to citizenship granted to those born in American hospitals? Once you're a citizen, you're a legal resident and will have to pay taxes and everything when you get a job. I mean I can see an argument about how these children would take advantage of government aid while their parents don't pay taxes, but you can hardly blame the kids. [quote name='AvalonAngel' date='29 July 2010 - 02:44 PM' timestamp='1280429080' post='698221'] [font="Garamond"]Also, I'm noticing a trend within the minority communities. Any time a law is enacted with a border community (California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas) that has to deal with immigration, they take it as some sort of massive insult to their culture and a racist attack on the Latin-American community when it's hardly the case. States have a right to enforce laws to protect people living within them. It shouldn't have to be an issue if people would go through the proper steps to gain citizenship.[/font] [/quote] It's not really a trend, because this has and will always happen as long as minorities exist. It's the mindset of minorities in, well, anywhere. I'm not going to say it's justified or unjustified (because LORD that would be another thread by itself) but it shouldn't really come as a surprise. Living as a minority anywhere has it ups and downs (mostly downs) so when a predominately white group of people start making laws perceived to be against a minority group, yes, people get defensive and riled up. Being a minority sucks enough in itself, so having the majority race make laws aimed at your racial group is more than enough to cause some intense emotions. And I hope no one here tries to insist that this law isn't aimed at hispanics. You can argue that the law isn't aimed at discriminating, and that people don't hate hispanic illegal immigrants they just hate illegal immigrants, and those arguments certainly have truth in them, but we're not living in some hyper-rationalized country. Economy breeds racism (i.e. Slavery in the U.S., the Irish immigrants, etc.). Now, it's less jobs for citizens and financial burdens on tax-payers --> dislike of illegal immigrants --> since most illegal immigrants in the U.S. are hispanic --> dislike of hispanics. You can say "but I don't feel that way," and be the exception to the rule, but history has proved it time and time again. States have the right to make laws on anything that the federal government doesn't hold primary power over, but I was under the impression that immigration laws were a federal domain. HC mentioned it, too. Sections of the law may skirt between the separated powers of federalism, but I don't think it's a black-and-white issue where someone can come out and say "Arizona can 100% do this, it's their constitutional right." Anyways in the end I generally agree with HC's final statements. The U.S. should allow increased numbers of immigrants. Economically, nothing great ever really comes from trying to operate the "American System."

I wear boxers for pajamas sometimes

[quote name='Lady Shy' date='27 July 2010 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1280261095' post='698030'] I have a solution for above problem. I regularly scan my last 100 posts nowadays to delete anything discluding major funny and/or awesome. Which is about 0,0001% on average, but it must be done. But in my earliest posts I behaved like an escalated just-joined chibi-master. [/quote] brb doing this

[quote=Huffington Post]Arizona Immigration Law: Sections BLOCKED By Federal Judge PHOENIX â?? A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's toughest-in-the-nation immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton shifts the immigration debate to the courts and sets up a lengthy legal battle that may not be decided until the Supreme Court weighs in. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state will likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned. But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that most angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places â?? a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants. "Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision. She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday. The law was signed by Brewer in April and immediately revived the national debate on immigration, making it a hot-button issue in the midterm elections. The law has inspired similar action elsewhere, prompted a boycott against Arizona and led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave the state. Lawyers for the state contend the law was a constitutionally sound attempt by Arizona to assist federal immigration agents and lessen border woes such as the heavy costs for educating, jailing and providing health care for illegal immigrants. Arizona is the busiest gateway into the country for illegal immigrants, and the state's border with Mexico is awash in drugs and smugglers that authorities badly want to stop. Brewer's lawyers said Arizona shouldn't have to suffer from America's broken immigration system when it has 15,000 police officers who can arrest illegal immigrants. "It's a temporary bump in the road, we will move forward, and I'm sure that after consultation with our counsel we will appeal," Brewer told The Associated Press. "The bottom line is we've known all along that it is the responsibility of the feds and they haven't done their job so we were going to help them do that." The ruling came just as police were making last-minute preparations to begin enforcement of the law and protesters were planning large demonstrations against the measure. At least one group planned to block access to federal offices, daring officers to ask them about their immigration status. In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage. The crowd clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!" Gisela and Eduardo Diaz went to the Mexican consulate in Phoenix on Wednesday seeking advice because they were worried about what would happen to their 3-year-old granddaughter if they were pulled over by police and taken to a detention center. "I knew the judge would say that part of the law was just not right," said Diaz, a 50-year-old from Mexico City who came to Arizona on a since-expired tourist visa in 1989. "It's the part we were worried about. This is a big relief for us." Opponents argued the law would lead to racial profiling, conflict with federal immigration law and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes. The U.S. Justice Department, civil rights groups and a Phoenix police officer had asked the judge for an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced. "There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. Federal authorities have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries. The core of the government's case is that federal immigration law trumps state law â?? an issue known as "pre-emption" in legal circles. The judge pointed out five portions of the law where she believed the federal government would likely succeed on its claims that U.S. law supersedes state law. "Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce pre-empted laws," Bolton wrote. Supporters of the law took solace in the fact that the judge did keep several portions of the law intact, including a section that bars local governments from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws. Those jurisdictions are commonly known as "sanctuary cities." "Striking down these sanctuary city policies have always been the No. 1 priority of SB1070," said Sen. Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican who sponsored the law. Brewer is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives. It's not yet clear how the ruling will affect her campaign, but her opponent was quick to pounce. "Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," said Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat. "It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy." Republican Rep. John Kavanagh, one of the law's top supporters, said he was disappointed by the ruling and that he expects it to ultimately end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. "I don't think the judge's statements in the hearings justify this ruling," Kavanagh said. "I don't think the law justified her injunction." [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/28/arizona-immigration-law-s_n_662376.html"]Source[/url][/quote] tl;dr: an Arizona federal judge blocked sections of the new immigration law, namely the part that required police officers to check the immigration status of people caught for breaking other unrelated laws. Delayed sections include: requiring all immigrants to carry papers at all time, making it illegal for undocumented workers to look for jobs in public, and a section that would allow police to make warantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants. [strike]Republicans cry moar over activist judges while insisting they hate Russian immigrants as much as Mexican ones[/strike] [img]http://i29.tinypic.com/30bie6u.gif[/img]

[quote name='Lady Shy' date='27 July 2010 - 09:33 AM' timestamp='1280237580' post='698008'] Word. THUS: [IMG]http://theglamourouslife.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/rray.jpg[/IMG] Still SFW. [/quote] meh Rachel Ray. meh these are far more attractive: [img]http://i30.tinypic.com/2njbj9c.jpg[/img] [img]http://i25.tinypic.com/152dfeh.jpg[/img]

OT and I didn't read through this thread sorry, my 2 cents It wasn't the US government's fault that BP took so long to stop the spill. There was relatively little they could do, other than loom menacingly over BP's shoulder