Izzy

_ _ _ _ _ smile - (0) names - (0)

Yay! So I get +30 that round. And you get 16. Unreality - 274 Izzy - 242 t8t8t8 - 163 Framm - 157 Plainglazed - 144 Glycereine – 119 Dawh - 71 woon - 58 blahblah99 - 28 Abhisk - 20 PVRoot - 15 Prince Marth - 15 DudleyDude - 15 yuiop - 21 _ _ _ _ _

dater inter water

Alter retained three. We already know the second to last letter is e. A is not the first letter because apple retained 0, so for the remaining 2 points, this leaves _lt_r. Likewise logic with after gives us _ft_r. Affro retained 0, so the second f is not right, leaving the t and r. __ter

Second to last letter is e because altar = 2 and alter = 3, and it's the only letter difference. affro honor

There's a pretty simple DXM extraction process, and you can make things called "lemon drops" to avoid the icky taste (DXM in pill capsules). DXM is a pretty awesome drug, look it up. Erowid is incredibly useful, and then there's this. (That same site has the only successful and tested extraction process I know of.) I'm not "spiritual" either (lmao.. others forum is evidence of that ), but the dissociation DXM provides is similar to ketamine, and you get definite OBEs. A lot of them are just crazy (dancing with aliens, dividing by zero, etc.), but the CEVs/OEVs highly reflect what you've seen that day, which is what I meant with the Assassin's Creed 2 load screen. Colorful joy. It's also pretty long lasting, haha.

Dude I'm appalled. What makes you think you (who I'm assuming is fully limbed and health-issue free) have more of a right to live than anyone else? What separates civilization from undeveloped societies is our ability to support the people in our community unable to support themselves. A yearish ago my friend made an excellent analogy - civilization started when mathematicians (people that don't directly contribute to society, unless you're doing applied maths, which is boring ) were able to sustain a livable life while not actually benefiting society, the way farmers at the time did. ...You sound, if I may, a bit Hitlery. You don't think the handicapped are necessary, and while I'm not saying you're advocating we will them off, you're definitely trying to refuse them medical attention, which is just as bad, if not the exact same thing. Please tell me I've misunderstood you. I'm not saying we need to give them the best possible technology, but at least a few notches above the bare survival minimum. The fact of the matter is that, yes, we can afford it, and yes, they do have the right to equal opportunities regardless of the misfortunes that befell them during birth. To say otherwise is almost inhumane. That's the exact reason to support him. Look, no matter how you argue it, the way jobs in the US are set up, with the upper 1% having 90% of the wealth, you have to realize that situations like this are bound to happen, and as stated above, a civilization unable to support its members is hardly a civilization at all. I don't know what percentage of the US is middle-lower/lower/poverty class, but I somehow doubt they're there because they want to be. I agree, if you blew off school, you deserve it, but that's more of a mentality to apply to someone that started off rich. If you started off poor, it's going to take a few generations before you get anywhere. That's just how it is - and that's what we need to change. We need to change wages, so that people can SURVIVE off of them. Maybe if we change wages so that even on minimum wage, you're able to support at least yourself, govermentalized health care will no longer be necessary. Until then, we have to support the people that can't support themselves due to the uneven distribution of wealth WE created. Prove your strength. The weak will NEVER die off, they've always been here and they always will be. Civilization will only be held back if we allow them to stay in the deplorable condition they're in. By helping them, we as a civilization advance, and they no longer pull of back. If that makes sense. For example: Say, you're rate on a scale of 1-10 based on how rich you are. Alright, you have a few rich guys, so like, 10, 10, 9, 9, 8.. Then you have quite a few middle class people, 5*5, and then you have a lot of lower class people, so like 1*10. Now, the average of those numbers is roughly 4. Now, to drop from a 10 to a 9, giving that money directly to the 1's, the one's will increase to a 4 or 5. So, new numbers, after some redistribution of wealth, 9, 9, 8, 8, 7, 5*15. The new average is 5.5. Our society, overall, is now richer. I'm not saying take the money from the rich and give it directly to the poor (not all of it anyway, do some through taxation), but make it so the lower class can't even exist by making minimum wage a fair wage. ..I hope that makes sense. It's getting late again. >_>

I'm sure there are ways to get around government intervention. As long as it isn't actually illegal (red listed or not), the Shroomery Marketplace is bound to turn up a reputable trader. Who knows, Ocotea Cymbarum syringes may be as easily available as ones with shroom spores. ..I'm assuming more pricey. I'd actually regard DXM's CEVs/OEVs based on "real life". The patterns pretty accurately reflect the colors/visuals of whatever you were looking at intently that day. The white stuff on the load screen for Assassin's Creed 2 is an pretty epic visual (coming from someone who hardly uses that word )

apple epoch craze

Hmm. Ocotea Cymbarum oil can be bought online (as far as a quick google search tells me), do you think it's pure enough to yield the safrole necessary for the synthesis? (Heh.. merely curious, no actual intentions to set up a clandestine chem lab in my closet ) I mean, I'm sure it's being done anyway, considering the availability of the oil/possibly seeds. The itch just grew.

BONGS

I'd actually argue that, in a lot of cases, mental maturity precedes physical maturity. A 14 year old, still physically immature, has the capacity to think and act like an adult. There will be differences, mostly ascribed to experiences, in these thoughts and how they are articulated (mostly vocabulary), but I doubt it's any more variation than how it fluctuates between adults. Now, I mean, obviously the 14 year old will get older, and regard most things they thought/said at that age as ludicrous, but that doesn't undermine the fact that when they were 14, they were still mentally mature, just not as informed as they would have liked to be. ..That's all speculation. I can't site any studies to prove my hypothesis, but as someone who just completed my freshmen year (14-15 year olds for you non-Americans), I've observed that freshmen are just as capable as seniors, and can even hold their own against most teachers. That said, compare a freshmen football player to someone on the varsity team, and it's like "Aww, that little kid is going to get crushed!"

That subtle drugs use is better than the all out "I AM SO HIGH MUTHAS!!! LOOK AT ME!!one111one!!" Just describing my character, haha. That's how I envision a hippy. Well, at least the chill ones.

Hmm, changing my character's t-shirt from standard tie-dye to an army green one with a white "Above the influence" circle thing. So, the final description: Ziggy, 20 years old, male, tall and slender, with dirty blonde dreadlocks held in an electric green bandanna. I have a matching green "I <3 Boobies" bracelet for breast cancer, and I wear those hippy shell necklaces. I wear a green "Above the influence t-shirt", comfortable stylish black sweatpants and a pair of flip-flops. As a hippy, I'm bound to look druggyish, but if I denied it, you would believe me. Oh, and I have a black backpack on me, so I look a bit like a casual hiker.

Curiously, which would be better, on a recreational level? I'm sure it could still be synthesized with either.. was there any actual reason for the switch?

So then representatives have multiple duties and deals with the issues people don't want to deal with, however, I was specifically referring to the amendment process. This is something I believe every person should have a say in, not just those in the government. Oh, I consider it absolutely necessary. Primary example: Look at how f**ked things are today. Look, dude, if a random company whose interest is monetary is your health care provider, do you really have that any more power than you would if the government with your best interest gives you the same, if not better coverage? In the first option, yeah, you can travel company to company, with a flat rate price, looking for what kind of coverage suits you most, and you end up paying what, like.. eugh, idk health insurance quotes, but you pay like $5,000 a year and you're happy. Note, you're not actually covered for everything. My ex-step-dad was an insurance salesmen, and I've yet to see one all-covering company. Everyone has the same right to life, and by privatizing health care, people with pre-existing conditions or with little income get screwed. Both entirely random, btw. I really don't even see why health insurance is a concern. Look around the world. Countries in which it's governmentalized (Canada, the UK, Germany, Switzerland) are doing notably better where health is concerned. I forgot what movie I watched.. it had Michael Moore in it.. The Awful Truth, or something? Go check it out. It, along with some other things, completely changed my mind on health care. Seriously, what benefit do you get by choosing a company? Is it just to say that you could choose it? Because that's really kind of pointless, and you're delaying important govermental evolution out of selfish desires. =/ I think in a country, what's good for the masses is important. If a few people are going to be unhappy with their excellent health care sheerly because they didn't pick it, so be it. It's better than people dying because they can't afford medical attention. The problem with your argument is that most people are poor because of misfortune. I somehow doubt someone is going to be bum just to leech off of health care benefits? Think seriously. This will benefit the single-mom working two jobs hardly able to provide for her kids and that 20 year old, with a degree and everything, unable to get health insurance due to a preexisting condition she had nil control over. And from the other post (I feel you'll know what I'm referring to, quoting is just annoying), I meant the government step up on the issues we tell them to (I wasn't very clear on that). Instead of the government just coming in and deciding things, I want them well ratified first, and then they act out as they must. Health insurance being a prime example. I think it was gvg who said it, but I don't understand how can you think the nation as a whole is informed enough to take care of themselves while you're entirely convinced a government would screw us over. The fact is the exact opposite. At Dej Mar's point regarding the age of consent, I think 18 is fair battle ground. This is the point where, if you agree to have sex with someone, you're old enough to know what you're doing, and even if you were willingly under the influence of some substances, you agreed, so step up to it like a responsible adult. If you're 18 and still immature, I honestly can't see the difference three years of aging would make. Military service should be voluntary because when a military gets involved, you've officially given up all attempts at diplomatic reasoning. I mean, guys, have we seriously not yet overcome with primitive tribal warfare? We need to have more important focuses, like strong leaders and negotiators, not strong armies. Also, a person's will to fight is going to be entirely dependent on how badly they want to be there. Forcing people to go into war accomplishes nothing. I don't know if you guys have realized (the US certainly hasn't), but it's entirely possible to stay neutral during a war, and this is what I propose we do. Now, that said, I don't think we should close the military entirely, because meh, I guess we could have some surprise attacks, but limit service to the people at want to be there ffs and make war the literal last resort. (I don't think altruistic people would see it as a burden. They *enjoy* helping. That said, as a fairly altruistic person, war holds us back and I don't see what it accomplishes. Aside from the American revolution, and other sorts of revolutions. But I can't see our country's need for this today anyway.)

Lmao, I never would have guessed I was right! I was just "Well.. it fits, but I'm sure he's.. looking for something more.. child appropriate..." Haha. Gotta love your transformers, man.

yuiop

I don't have time (or am awake enough, honestly) to reply to that all at once, but I do have one comment to make. I realize conservatives tend to be "less government!" on most issues, but I disagree the liberals are more willing to give up their power and put it in the hands of the representatives. I look at it more as them wanting a say in every issue, but they just tend to want things (health care, social security, whatevs) govermentalized (word? I really am tired haha). It's not that they want the representatives to make decisions for them, they just want the government to step up and take care of them. ..This is why I don't like representatives.. I don't want a bunch of random people making decisions for me that I have no say in. =/ Surely there has to be a third option?

Haha, that'd be highly unlikely, but I would love to get away with it again.. I want to know my role eugheugheugh. *impatient >_>*

Ziggy: Yo homefry, how are we gonna catch this murderer if the murderer doesn't even know if s/he's the murderer yet?

I sort of figured the delegates would have other responsibilities?

Unreality, Zerep, and I account for three of the five libertarian votes. Idk who the other two belong to, as far as I can recall they weren't mentioned in the thread. It could be anyone, really, not necessarily someone participating. Hmm. Should each state have the same number of representatives regardless of population? I think a law needs to be passed where the representative (if we decide to have them) HAS to vote the way the majority of the people in his state did. ..Or for the amendment process, we could just have a direct democracy and make it something like 70:30 for it to pass. A clear majority, but nothing overwhelming like 90:10, because in direct democracy, we have to assume that people that have no idea what they're voting for are voting.. Okay, how about something like this. Each state (heh, I was watching QI last night, apparently there are only 46 states and 4 commonwealths) gets five delegates, elected by the people. When an amendment is proposed, everyone in the state votes in favor or against the amendment. Then, delegate votes are based on the votes of the people in that state. If the state is like 96% in favor, then all five votes support the amendment. If it's like 60-40, 3 for, 2 against, and so forth. So, we have a total of 250 delegates. If we get a total of 175 or more delegate votes in favor of the amendment, it passes. ..Thoughts?