Search Results

I hope you will be alright, Hannah, and he was a great person. My condolences to you and your family.

He may be 'new' and not as experienced but he's smart and not chained to conventional thinking or held by a ton of lobbyist groups from corporations because he didn't accept donations from them. That in itself is refreshing for a candidate to do. If Obama chooses the right staff and they have integrity as he seems to, then although we have one helluva debt to catch and a lot of things to fix, I think he's the best one out of the three to handle it. Also, people overseas seem to like him more because he's willing to 'talk' instead of just go to war which makes a difference too. It would be nice for the world to stop thinking all we put in office are cowboys and outdated stuffy people.

Really if he's smart he will choose a great cabinet to fill in the gaps of his knowledge. He's well rounded himself but I view him as kind of the Jack of all trades deal where he knows a variety of things but might only be excelled in a few of them. I have hopes because he's a lot more open minded than many of the others and rational so he can learn quick. People like to say he's just all talk but there is wisdom behind the words and I don't think he's going to be a 'super president' but he's certainly better than the other options. Though I have to say I don't really fear McCain either, though I don't like some of his platforms.

Some of Hillary's supporters truly were rather frightening with how they were griping that he was a black man (he's mixed like so many others in this country), he's Muslim (which he isn't), and other stuff. When you hear old ladies saying he's 'colored' which no one uses anymore, it's time to stop supporting the stupid people. Also, I haven't seen where he's so much more 'liberal' than Hillary's viewpoints as most of their platforms were rather identical.

That kind of makes no sense... of course he could set someone on fire by snapping his finger. The guy can just move his hands and things ignite around him. The power isn't really from his 'motions' as well as it is the concentration and he was just showing off with the finger snap, most likely. All of the Organization members' powers seemed to be through concentration of mind and the effects were pretty spontaneous. Gestures are just for added spice or when they are really concentrating and straining to do massive things.

By Nomura's own account, Ansem (Xehanort) is the only Heartless that kept sentience and maintained a form. The other members of Xehanort's group were changed into probably Pureblood Heartless since it would make no sense for the original group of 6 to have changed into Emblem Heartless if they cast themselves to Darkness direct as Ansem/DiZ declares.

If Sora managed to destroy the Heartless, any Nobody that died would go back to the cleansed Heart that was maintained and held by Kingdom Hearts. (Not their fake one as we don't even know what the purpose all the way for it was). This is what happened to Axel when he died. His Nobody part went back to rejoin with his Heart and he should be now merged with his Somebody somewhere. As for others in the Org, no one right now knows if they truly ceased to exist because their Heartless haven't been destroyed yet so the Hearts would be held for them or not. It could be that some members of Castle Oblivion in CoM endured and rejoined their Somebodies but we won't know the answer to that. It could also be some people in KH2 other than Axel made it but we won't know that either yet.

But we also know by Nomura's words that if a Nobody dies when a Heartless is still in existence that owns his/her Heart, that the Nobody fades and is lost to Darkness. So it could be some members other than Axel made it back to be whole again, but there is no way to find out for sure. The top 6 members may have been the most 'screwed' in the design of things if their Heartless were actually lost in the realm of Darkness but there's nothing for sure saying those Heartless didn't get out. The only one who "probably" absolutely won't have a Somebody is Xemnas because Riku killed Xehanort's Heartless and there was no 'Heart' released as the Heartless merged with Riku. So, unless there is some plot twist happening, the only one absolutely to write off is Xemnas. I'd almost think it safe to say most if not all of the top 6 members probably were done for too but that is chancy. Perhaps though some of the Organization members made it back to their Somebodies.

We also don't know if at the end, when Sora and Riku had defeated Xemnas, what happened to the remaining Nobodies, as to whether they ceased to exist or went back to their own Hearts either. Sora did kill a lot of Heartless so it's possible a good percentage made it back, and they didn't really 'die' unless Xemnas had some safety feature that said if he died, they all would. So, I think they gave in and wait for their Hearts to return to them so they can be back to normal. It is interesting to speculate on that since technically they seemed to choose to leave and move on. Not sure though.

Why are you calling the Dark Keyblade as Soul Taker? It was just a pseudo Keyblade and the Dark Keyblade is the official name for it, I believe.

OOC: I'm glad to see you aren't quitting! You are cool.

Harvey let out an audible phew and wiped his brow. "Pika, it's alright. Calm down, okay? You are safe and all. We've got some things to finish up here and move on!" Harvey was hoping to get him back to normal so that they could continue and nothing bad would happen...beyond what already had.

It is an interesting theory but I'm not sure I'd consider Kairi a chaser like the 3 in the past. No one in the game (unless Riku actually did make Kairi's Keyblade and had a hand in the Dark Keyblade's creation) actually seemed to do anything that would suggest it so much technical speaking because no one designed an actual Keyblade. Keychains seem kind of different to me in that they represent a bond between the Keyblade Wielder and the person/world. So, while her oath to Sora was important, so was his bond with Axel, his link with Pooh, his ties with Tarzan etc, which all had their own way of becoming Keychains (or Keyblades by default in KH2). Kairi does have a lot of power with Light that is rather not seen in full glory, but she doesn't seem the type to actually be able to craft a Keyblade.

You are right that she made the Keychain though, but she called it a 'charm' and to her it wasn't a Keychain at all. It was her charm to keep someone safe who went overseas and protect them from storms an such to ensure the person would make it home. That's what the purpose of it was and she kept it on her as a lucky charm for that reason. She gave it to Sora to make him promise to bring it back, which in turn would keep him safe. So, I think that I would almost more attribute it to the power of the Keyblade itself to make it a Keychain like the others he received.

lol Tummer. I saw that a while ago on some site that collects those things but it's funny still to see it again. Good stuff. I also like the 'survivors will be shot again' one too.

So, in the end it is just because it is a religious thing that makes you say it is wrong. That is what I was wondering.

Not so much from apes, really who also have sex for pleasure. Also, I'd debate this more with even other animals outside of apes but I don't want to confuse you more than I probably already have. Thank you though for talking the matter of this out with me.

Why should you tell people not to have sex if they don't want a kid? A person should be aware if he/she has sex that a kid -could happen- but why should a person not have sex if they understand the risks and are prepared in case that did happen? Why do you care if someone has sex and it is for not producing a child?

Ah, I didn't realize you were so young. Sorry about that. I'll try to explain it a bit more by what I mean about attraction and why it's not just something you pick and choose. If someone is not attracted to someone, the desire to have sex for reproduction is also not going to happen and if forced, that person stuck being forced is going to be miserable. It is like rape, even if they have to consent to it. If it does, it is a rather forced issue and what love is that couple going to have for one another, let alone the fact that the child is going to be mistreated? Think of the most annoying boy in school you know who you find disgusting. Would you want to have sex with him? Could you even think of kissing him without gagging by reflex? What if you were forced to have to do it for the sake of reproduction? This is how straight people feel about being with someone of the same gender. It is also how homosexual people feel about being with someone of the opposite gender. Bisexual is the exception but they also have preferences of the types of males and females they can stand, which often have mirrored qualities.

To make it even easier to see what I mean, think of the most disgusting food out there. Some kind of food you've tasted before and wanted to literally hurl over, or maybe you did, trying it. Now, if this food is the only food you have for the day to eat, are you going to want to rather starve and hold out to see if something better comes along? Most people would. Imagine that this is the only food you can have because some people tell you that it's what you should eat because it's healthy for you, even though you can't imagine how it can be so because every time you smell it, you want to head to another room and thinking of tasting it makes you gag. This is how homosexuals feel. This is how straight people feel. And this is how some others feel about certain sexual behaviors etc.

It is natural for us to have attraction to some things and revulsion to others. It may or may not be something people are born with but it is clear it is through hormones and if the attraction just isn't there, it isn't. Think of all the women throughout history that have had to marry by force and had little joy out of having sex with her partner because of arranged marriages. Her life would be dull and she's just living to do a job of taking care of a house and loving her children. She may never have loved that man she was stuck with. Attraction is important as a part of marriage. It's not the only thing, but who wants a kid with someone you aren't interested in? I hope that makes more sense.

I don't believe that a person has to be 'married' to have sex but yes, I do agree that if people have sex they should at least have it in their minds that a kid could come out of it. However, gay people really don't have to worry about that, but instead have to worry about STDs, as does a person who is straight. Unprotected sex and even protected sex without thinking that it could result in having a kid or catching something is just plain stupid in any day and age. If someone likes someone and is attracted, no, he or she doesn't have to go 'do it'. You are right. Sexual relations of any kind should be thought out and taken seriously whether a person is married or not.

The comfort of marriage though is a good thing. It means two people are going to be devoted and not sleep around on each other, or at least that's what it means to me and most people, I'd think. So it gives a person a good comfort zone and a fact of trust with another person. This is why I don't mind gay marriage too. It means those two people are going to be devoted and have sex and not catch STDs and it means they will have a more stable life because of that. I have far more of a problem with open marriages, which I have no idea why they are allowed or polygamous marriages than I do with gay or straight marriage between 2 people that love each other, because at any time you can add more people into the picture and it loses its purpose.

I do understand why you think marriage should be for reproductive purposes and such, but I just see it different that instead the most important thing is the trust factor and devotion and the fact you know where your partner has been. Not all couples that are straight produce children so there has to be a love there and commitment that keeps it alive. Gay couples to me are like those that can't produce children who are straight. It means something very special to them to be together through thick and thin and there is more to a marriage than just having kids. It's also the desire to have that person you love throughout your life and to grow old together, have fun and have someone around who you have had the most intimate of experiences with. Because we divide on the issue of religion though, I do understand why you feel different about it, but even quite a few Christians see it this way because they understand later on in life how important a partner can be and how it just makes people have a much better life to have found someone who interests them on several levels for that special intimacy. Couples aren't together just for sex or reproduction or there'd be a lot less people wanting marriage.

There are already two (at least) topics still fresh here on Riku's weapon in this very forum. You might want to read those for answers to your question.

Actually it has been true quite often in history that men have been infertile and blamed it on their wives and thus had reasons to kill them off or divorce them, pick up new women and still end up not producing heirs. In studies, it has been a pretty 50/50 split and sometimes in surveys conducted, men actually have been more often times infertile than women. I would still go with the fact that it is both a male and female issue of equal standing though because the reports on men being infertile more often than women are rare as of yet.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050622134550.htm
http://www.asrm.org/Patients/faqs.html

Those are two sites on it and there are many more. Most go with it affects men and women equally in medical information and just history itself even proves it as men could do some awful things to women and still end up with no children because they blamed females.

Why again is it wrong? Animals in the wild do it. Why exactly is it wrong? If there is no answer other than God says no, and that they aren't reproducing, then what else is there? Not everyone wants to have children. So, if you make a choice to have sex only to have children, that is a personal choice. What makes it right for everyone? Every time a woman takes a pill then, or a man wears a condom, we are violating the very thing you are saying is right. What makes it so much different? The results will still be no children will be born and the people involved had a good night of fun with someone he/she liked.

OOC: I get what you are saying and hope that Pika doesn't feel that way. Pika, you are awesome. stay in the game dude. Yo.

Sora turned around and waved to Yen Sid. "Hello Master Yen Sid!"

Yen Sid gave a nod to Sora and the others in the court room. "Greetings. I believe we have a court case to resolve."

"We sure do", Sora responded and turned around to look forward and see how Pika was doing now.

Riku studied Yen Sid a moment and then caught Xelax looking kind of intimidated? Yes, he did. He wondered why. Yen Sid did have the damned most creepy strict eyes out there and power. Maybe that was it.

Yen Sid gave a nod and his fingers snapped. In his hand appeared a wand and he pointed i at the Pokemon. Magic energy gleamed out of the tip, firing at the Pokemon, and then an aura of blue white energy circled around the unconscious Pika. When the energy dissipated in glitters, Pika should awaken feeling refreshed and fine, though he would probably also know what had happened to him moments ago that caused him to go out cold. Yen Sid then sat back and the wand went back into some pocket in his robes. "It is done."

OOC: I don't think you should be a prosecutor, ICSP. I think Pika is fine and this is IC and not picking on Pika at all. What Mewtwo did would anger people quite a bit. however, I think Pika should be a Prosecutor still and it would be too much to see Edgeworth step in and you also run Xelax. Let's keep it as it is please. If it was another character than a Prosecutor or Defender then I'd say whatever, but the 4 character slots pretty much need to remain amongst 4 different people.

Amendment and teach Repliku to read apparently: Ahem, I misread this. Any way, I think Pika is fine and don't think Edgeworth is needed at all really until Sora's case. I believe that it will be fine and all. It's being acted out IC and Pika just likes to play around too.

I would say they exist because people want them to in order to live together socially and be as productive as we can while not killing ourselves off. It doesn't seem to take a supernatural power to reveal to me that being nice and helpful to others boosts myself and those people up and we can make it farther in life with less hazards. People in tribal communities, long before Christianity or Judaism had to get along and there are tribes out there that do still. Why? Because it is beneficial to them and they are happier because of that. What supernatural meaning do you need to be nice to someone when you can see the reality of the goodness it does for humankind before your eyes?

I don't think that people need to fear to be good beneficial people. If they see the positives, and also the negatives, most people will long for the positive things that help keep them, their families, and community safe. It's part of the social structure of people but also seen quite abundantly in the animal kingdom with packs, prides, etc. We are social creatures and if one is doing bad things, sooner or later something has to be done to get that person back in line...same as with animals. We just tend to be a lot kinder than animals do because those who mess up things there usually are killed straight out or chased off to die on their own. Kindness is potentially innate in most people and otherwise, that's why there are laws to help keep people in line so it is beneficial for people to follow those laws if they want to remain in that society.

So, how does God give people morals that nature already doesn't supply? The promise of a good afterlife? I think it's totally unneeded because no one can prove that such a place even exists and why not live the best lives we can WHILE we are alive? In seriousness though, I am curious why people seem to believe they need God to be good, when you can take responsibility yourself and do it instead. Do people seriously think of themselves as being incapable of it and needing the fear and oppression of an outside force as well as a social structure? It confuses me why.

Okay, so you could if you wanted to, which again gives you the preference that there is a possibility. With everyone it isn't like that. What are you sexually repulsed by? Could you be made to find something sexually attractive to you that you thought at the same time was gross? Most people cannot and to have sex with someone you aren't interested in in any way is just empty to the soul. It leaves you with a bad sense of being and self.

Of course man + woman = possible baby, but some people can't have babies. Some men are infertile and some women are too. Some women must have ovaries removed or men get prostate cancer or something. Do these people have a right to have sex despite the fact they can never reproduce? It would be considered very cold to say so. As I've said before, humans have sex for more reasons than just the biblical reproduction mandates. Sex is enjoyable and healthy for people as long as they practice it safely. So why then should people be told not to enjoy each other's social company and have sex if they are attracted to someone else, be it of the same gender or opposite gender or if the person is incapable of 'breeding'? We aren't just out to populate the world. Sex is not just for that purpose. If it was in our natures to only have sex for reproduction then yes, there would be no such thing as homosexuals. But it just isn't the case.

I agree with what you said and said much of the same thing elsewhere when asked because to me it seemed that the Keyblade itself may have at one time been in Xehanort's hands or someone else but gone into a remission because the Keyblade is not going to function for a Heartless. Good strong analogy.

I think Roxas had a part of his Heart by the Keyblade connection he had. I don't feel he had the whole thing though and believe he's connected to Ven and what remained of his Heart probably went to Sora when he was a kid.

As for Namine, no, I don't think she had a Heart. The important thing to remember though with all the Nobodies is that though they had no Hearts, they did have Souls and also could recall their feelings before they were Nobodies, even if in Roxas's case and Namine's, they may not have remembered who they were. I think Namine though knew she was Kairi's Nobody because she makes a comment in CoM that she is Kairi's shadow.

The game does make it rather clear that the Nobodies had no Hearts and Roxas may really be the only exception to having a portion of one because his power is 'Light' and also he has a Keyblade by his connection to Sora, and later they change to two because of his connection through Sora to Riku and Kairi. It's clear though he didn't have his whole Heart though or else he wouldn't have been a Nobody at all.

Yeah, Hunchback happened after Pocahontas and Lion King so it was well after the closet had been opened. But I think Disney just used the word to keep to its true meaning of happily walking since the scene doesn't look 'gay' if you get what I mean.

I thought I'd hate Enchanted...but my stupid friend...darn her for bringing it to my apartment. I watched it and thought it was the best Disney film I've seen in some time. They did such a great job on it...I felt gushy afterwards. I tell her I still hate her for that film. :) That darn dance song in the middle "How does she know that you love her" ...just evil. lol