When you get into the classroom, then your bladder is empty and as long as the child don't have a medical condition, then it is easy to hold it. When he ask to go out, he is disturbing the class.

If he had a class from 8 to 11:30 w/o breaks, then he should be allowed to have a toilet break. The point is that even though he might have been a good kid who was treated wrong, he might as well be a troublemaker and the decision of the teacher was correct. Therefore the decision of the teacher could be correct and don't condemn the action too early.

Even a sixth grader would understand the second option was a joke option. They are not that stupid. He probably thought it was funny to act out the joke option to annoy the teacher. I still say that if he was a good kid he would either just left to the bathroom or he would have peed his pants.

It's not very hard to hold yourself for an hour. I believe that students should be allowed to go out and pee if they don't ask regularly, but this kid might have been a troublemaker and ask to go peeing nearly every hour. If he wasn't a troublemaker and actually couldn't hold, he would probably pee his pants. He probably did it to show his disrespect to the teacher.

That is untrue. I am poor as shit, but I managed I find a program where I could attend community college for free while I was in high school! They paid for my tuition and textbooks and I immediately jumped on this opportunity and in the past four years of high school, I was able to complete 80 units of  college for no cost, and even after that, I have tons of opportunities to get good money through government grants like FAFSA and scholarships. Sure, its not enough, but its enough to get my by. The problem is, America is a very open-ended country. You are free to fail miserably or do amazing well. You have a lot of chances to prove yourself, but the issue is, at least in the education system, most people don't care enough to take on these chances or they just don't know about it because there is so much to consider and a lack of organization.

You must remember that not everyone are as fortunate as you and can attend the university for free or is capable of following university courses. I'm not saying that poor people have no chances to become rich, but it's much harder. If you were rich you would probably attend one of the top universities now. It is true that they give less funding to public schools in bad areas. Why they do that is a good question?

Not only is this system unfair towards those who are poor, but it also cause more criminality and make more stupid Americans.

So bascially you are saying that you vote for the big 2 only because everyone else does it. So you would jump off a bridge if everyone else did that too I guess. I'm sorry if I actually believe we should vote the best candidate and not just who we are SUPPOSED to vote for. That's why third parties don't get votes. It's not because they aren't better, it's because people like you are apathetic and lazy and don't give a shit if things stay the same year after year after year. If people thought like you in the past, we'd still have slavery and women wouldn't be able to vote. Changes occur when people are brave and determined enough to take ACTION.

I don't think you followed my reasoning. I said you should vote for the big 2, because if many thought like you, you would make the party you support the least win. The reason isn't because of the bandwagon, but because the American system is old and not working probably and Americans refuse to fix it.  

If you want to change something, why don't you go forward and discuss against winner take all system? People thought like me in the past and therefore we have only had two parties since the civil war. The reason why both slavery got abolished and women got voting rights was because enough people started supporting it and then one of the big ones took it up and fought for it, not because of third parties. However, voting for third parties is a good way to promote single issues. If you are a socialist you better vote for the democrats, since voting for the socialist will only help the republicans. Third parties can only be used to promote single issues, therefore a third party will never be big.

Well in CNN's defense they have to fill in 24 hours worth of programming every day. And when your channel is nothing but news, you gotta report everything lol.

And back on the sub-topic of 3rd parites. Yeah I actually COULD see the Green Party eventually becoming a major player. People are just now realizing the importance of the enviroment and how screwed up we are making it. And people like Dubbya Bush have gone a long way in helping to destroy it all so who better to take us into the Green Age than the Green Party? :P

As far as I know though (cuz of the lack of info about other candidates) I'm not even sure there IS a Green Party rep. Is it Nader again?

On a side note, how easy would it be to start up a chain letter thru email for someone wanting to be president. It would travel all over the country many times over and I'm sure alot of dumb people would vote for him/her just for shits and giggles.

I explicit explained to you that a third party could never win an American election. It doesn't matter how popular it becomes, it will never win an election because the American system is designed to keep third parties out. If you are ignorant about the American system, then at least listen to people who knows. A vote for a third party is a wasted vote and it will make the party you support the least win. Would you vote for a party that would make the party you support the least win? Also when enviroment becomes popular, then the Democrats will support action, actually they do allready.

If they changed the system and the representatives is distrubuted after how many votes you get, instead of how many states you get majority in, then the U.S. would have severall third parties.

haha how can you defend this post: (???)

after he says there has only been a two party system for half a century~

There has been a two party/one party system since George Washington. Not a single time has a third party won an election, the only times when it switch is for instance if a party divides itself. One of the parties will die and there are two parties left. The reason is because it's impossible to have three sucessful parties in the U.S.

There isn't anything wrong with America that a change in President won't fix.

The main problem is how people in other countries view America. The fact is, the people who migrate here and actually spend a lengthy amount of time here are nothing but thrilled out of their minds to be living in the greatest country in the world. It's the people who don't live here who just see us on their news, or in the newspaper, or in propaganda videos who get this warped view and end up hating us.

I have lived in the U.S. for a lengthy amount of time and I certainly don't think that the U.S. is the best country in the world and I believe there are many things that can be fixed. For instance the school system where about no-one goes to college and responsibility for own learning is unheard of. Even college students need to be assigned homework before they even bother to do work.

Also if you are poor in the U.S. you will end up in horrible schools, the colleges will weight down your GPA, because you went to a bad school and your school didn't offer any AP courses. Even if you get to a good college you will meet tons of problems, you have to take up more than a million dollar in loan because the college prices are extremely high. The previous high school has  probably skipped a lot of the syllabus or you don't need to understand the material to achieve a high grade and then you will fail and have to leave the college.

However, if you are rich in the U.S. then everything is impeccable. You can attend the best elementary and high schools in the U.S., even the public schools are very good and that's because they receive a lot more funding than public schools in poor areas. If you are poor it is very hard to achieve something and most poor people don't have the willpower. Therefore the U.S. has very many poor people and a lot of criminality and stupid people who base their morals on religious values.

Also, in spite of these problems, the U.S. doesn't even have the highest GDP in the world. In the recent years the U.S. has been beaten by many countries because of stupid actions from the Congress and the President.

I'm not saying that the U.S. is bad in every single aspect. There are many good things about the U.S., but it's certainly not perfect.

That's bullshit. There have been presidents in the past from the Federalist party, the Whig Party, The Torrie Party, it's a 2 party system now because people will only RECENTLY pick Republican or Democrat. This is a trend that's only been within the last 50 years or so.

We CAN pick someone else, we just don't.

Your an American and you don't even know your own system. In the U.S it's worthless to vote for another candidate and that has been proven severall times in the past. If you are going to get any votes you need to get above 50%/majority in a state and if you don't then you will not get a single vote from that state. I will give you an example.

Let's say in an election there are three parties. Party 1,2, and 3. If in the previous election party 1 got 60% and party 3 got 40% then party 1 won easily. However, if in the next election party 1 divides itself and becomes party 1 and 2 and get together 60% of the votes while party 1 still got 40%. In countries apart from the U.S Party 1 and 2 will win if they go together as a coalition, but not in the U.S. Since you have to win the state and if we presume that they divide themself equally, then party 1 will get 30%, Party 2 will get 30% and party 4 will get 40% and party 4 gets all of the votes even though they only had 40% of the votes the party will probably get 75% of the votes from the electoral college. Therefore it's impossible to come in as a third party and voting for a third party is similar to voting for the party you support the least.

Up during the past no third party has ever won an election and that should ring a bell.

1.e4 d5

I agree with Sredni. Whether most of you like Harry Potter or not it's still a phenomenon and I'm not exactly shocked that it would go for a high price for a one-of-a-kind edition book.

Four MILLION is a ridiculous price ok, but that's not so much their fault but the fault of the retard that agreed to pay it.


I'd personally love to own that, though it's obviously never going to happen nor would I pay really any substantial money for a book!

But my favourite part of all of this, at the end, is the guy's white gloves in the photo and the protective glass casing and security ropes. You'd think it's the fucking Crown Jewels.

Do you know how much these books is going to be worth in 100 years? That's going to be a lot more than they bought them for.

Remember that he was sentenced three years on probation. He was not sentenced to three years in prison. Probation only means that he has to behave well to not end up in prison. He has done this severall times before and he was making loud noises in a hotel probably at night. He has also got severall complaints from milk delivers who have seen him doing the act. Therefoere I don't think it was that bad and there's a lot of worse cases.

New Years Resolutions:
1. Not to have a New Years Resolution

Seriously, telling yourself "Oh I'll get a girlfriend", "I'll take better care of myself", "I'll change for the better" really doesn't work, and ends up leaving me worse than before I'd actually started.

It works, so I don't agree. If I didn't try to get a girlfriend I would never have girlfriend now since I wouldn't have been experienced enough. I never made it as my New Years Resollution since I mostly know what I should do.

You're classifying people by their industrial worth. How much money they make/take for/from the system. You know what kind of people actually believe in that shit?

You seriously need to reconsider your moral views. Because right now, it seems money is the only kind of moral base you have. And to be frank, your last few posts actually made me nauseous (not the idea, but the fact that a person can honestly believe that stuff), and I have never experienced that at GW ever before. This is like the most morally disgusting shit I've read on here ever. I've read similar on youtube but I've pretty much discounted them. Reading stuff like that on GW is pretty shocking though.

The point of living isn't making society money. It's just a ride.

I thought he was sarcastic to show that if we used the same logic towards the girl as the boy, then we should destroy her as well. Someone pointed out that the boy will most likely be a burden to the society and the girl will probably be a burden as well.

But he was serious, oh well... that's worse.

I don't preside over cases. I am not a judge. I have my feelings on these matters and I have the benefit of not having a robe to uphold. Obviously judges (ideally) do not work off of their feelings and so forth and instead uphold the relevant laws (with some room left in for them to move at their discretion). If I am not mistaken, however, the worst sentences are meant to be reserved to those who willingly and in a complete sane state of mind committed a heinous crime (which he did) and demonstrate no remorse (which he has). It is in that spirit in which I wholeheartedly do not disagree with the long sentencing (although if it makes you feel any better, such a sentence probably won't hold up under appeal).
I don't know enough about the girl's case to comment on that. Maybe it was an accident, maybe since she's 8 she didn't realize the consequences of her actions. I don't know enough to make a judgment. I don't think that each and every murder/rape is justified by a long sentence, but based on what I know about this case, I don't feel sorry for the boy

After your new definition then teenagers who beat up other children on the street should also get 60 years. You must remember that they didn't say that he showed no remorse, only that he lied and I would probably lie as well in the same situation. Why do teenagers who beat up other children hardly any punishment at all (Maybe a month), but he is supposed to get 60 years.

At least it won't hold under an appeal and that's a good thing. The girl did it because she got mad so it wasn't an accident, but I don't think she realized the cosequences.

Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I was pretty sure the residents of the neighborhood you move to have to agree to let you move in or at least be alerted that a sex offender is moving in.  Even if this isn't right, there is someone in pretty much every neighborhood that keeps an eye on sex offenders in the area, it's not something you can really keep secret.  I've looked in my area before, it takes about two seconds to see the sex offenders anywhere in any general area.

He probably has to move out of the U.S. to prevent that, but I don't believe that since he will be hated by people then he should get 60 years of prison is a valid reason.

Cho: I was discussing against the statement. He might have fucked up her life and therefore he deserves it. Then I told the example of girl since she totally ruined one of the classmates life. Much worse than what the boy did since he only might have destroyed her life. yes, the boy was more brutal, but the consequences were less.

There is one more aspect to look at. What's the chance of rehabilitation, but the problem is that it's pretty large which ruins that argument as well. Brutality comes under rehabilitation.

Killer Wolf: You are suggesting to give him a death sentence since he will never be accepted by any communities anymore. You are also suggesting that he will be a burden to the welfare system since he is not going to work or go to school since he is a sex offender. I'm sorry to tell you, but many sex offenders do work.

It is important not to forget that outside the area he lived, he is not very well known. Therefore people will only know that a new guy moved in the area and as long as CNN doesn't come and try to fuck up his life, then he will live there fairly peacefully.

While this might be extreme, since he was a minor at the time, I really find it hard to care. He horribly beat and sexually assaulted a 6-year-old!

Did you read the description of the girl?

That doesn't sound like he just roughed her up a bit. It sounds like he practically tried to kill her. Half an ear torn off? Fractured skull? Seriously, I find it really hard to care that this guy deserves anything less than he is getting.

And you also believe that the eight year-old girl who shot a classmate should get 60 years in prison? The boy might have destroyed her life while the girl actually ruined the life another child undoubtedly!

Nobody has said it wasn't horrible and no one says that he shouldn't be punished,but there is no reason to give him 60 years when he can improve and become a responsible person.

Horrible, and this is supposed to be America? I thought when I saw the topic that this was in a country like North Korea or something. Are you going to give life sentence to robbers as well?
He was 13 for Christ sakes and even though what he did was horrible he could improve. Believe it or not, but even three years in prison would do an awful lot, and they could give him a prison sentence that he would be let out when he was considered mentally stable.  

Zeratul: You believe that if a person might destroy the life of a person (with intention?) then he deserves to rot in hell. Why doesn't all other rapist get life sentence? Why don't everyone who murders someone get life sentence? For instance there was a girl at about age 8 i think and she took her father's gun with her one day and killed one of her classmates. She should get life sentence right? I pretty sure she's out now and haven't killed another person, but you believe that she should get life sentence.

I haven't played any games here, but I do play chess so I can show you my last game. (My opponent played badly for his rating, 1150)
My uploader didn't seem to work. http://www.johnpratt.com/items/chess/chess_recorder.html
1. d4, d5. 2. c4, dxc4. 3. e4, b5. 4. Nc3, Bd7. 5. a4, c6. 6. axb5, cxb5. 7. b3, cxb3. 8. Qxb3, a6. 9. Nxb5, Qb6. 10. Bf4, Bxb5. 11. Bxb5+, Kd8. 12. Qd5+
He gave up since I had mate in a few moves or he would lose his queen and rook and i would mate him pretty fast anyway.

I was white if you didn't notice.

My vote goes for running.

Probably chess, running and cross country skiing. I have been doing swiming, but I hate that I have to wait before I can breath.