I've never understood how anyone can support this pairing. Not only is Hinata steadfastly devoted to Naruto but Sasuke NEVER interacts with her in the entire series as of yet. The closest they come is being in the same room a few times.

Some people say Naruto and Hinata have no chance of getting together because they don't spend a lot of time together, but if that's so then Sasuke and Hinata have less than zero chances.

Besides, I can't see Hinata even liking Sasuke that much, though I doubt she hates him. Hinata admires people who work hard despite failures and obstacles. Sasuke abandoned everyone who cared about him not long after he started struggling and thinking he wasn't strong enough and needed a short cut.

As far as I am aware Ichigo x Orihime is the only couple that actually has gotten any support in the story. From the very start Ichigo interacts with Orihime in a different way than he does anyone else and she in turn. There are countless little moments between them that individually mean little but collectively could mean something.

Then there is the fact that she has already admitted repeatedly to liking him.

Plus she's the author's favorite character from what I've heard.

All in all I see far more of a chance for Orihime and Ichigo than him and Rukia. They really do make a good pair as the differences in their personalities support each other quite well. Orihime would make a great wife, Ichigo would just have to be careful what he eats. ^_^

Quote by ROMEZand by the way erkicman, it's not eye-shadow[which would imply him wearing makeup] its pretty much dark circles from him not sleeping

I had heard they (and his lack of eyebrows) were physical changes brought about by having Shukaku sealed inside him, much like Naruto gained those whisker markings from the Kyuubi. The Shukaku is a raccoon dog demon and thus he has those eye markings like raccoon dogs. It marks him as a demon vessel and thus he was ostrasized by his people.

I like Gaara and his relationship to Naruto (who he apparently regards as his best friend due to their connection and all he's done for Gaara). In many ways he is just like Naruto, but whereas Naruto exemplifies the best that can happen when you're rejected and hated all your life, Gaara represents the worst that can happen. While Naruto strove to prove himself worthwhile, Gaara gave into the pain and loneliness.

It didn't help that the seal on Shukaku didn't contain it nearly as much as as the Nine Tail was contained, allowing Shukaku to influence Gaara far more (giving him that bloodlust, not allowing him to sleep and such).

Quote by MakotaIt was new and different .
To be perfectly honest we all wanted to see who was stronger

Not that we really did see who was stronger. Naruto was fighting to bring Sasuke back alive, if damaged, while Sasuke (up until the point he decided not to) was fighting to kill Naruto. This is exemplified when Naruto intentionally misses a very damaging hit he could have delivered on Sasuke and instead simply scratches his headband. All of these things effected the outcome of the fight.

Quote by krow666Bush

Terrorism existed before Bush and will exist after them. I don't see why you even bothered posting that.

<><><>

On the other hand, I do believe the real issue is the targetting of civilians. Take Iraq, it seems to me far more attacks target random civilians than the military or officials or the army they say they want to leave. How can this help them achieve their goal, other than making the whole country afraid of them?

Of course it is more complicated than this, but I recall once reading some years ago (before 9/11 even) about one group of muslim terrorists who were questioned on the matter of killing people who have nothing to do with their ambition. The basic response is they believe it is not their fault. In their beliefs if a person dies they were "meant" to die, and thus they are not responsible, and it is good as long as it furthers their goal (or at least furthers it in their eyes). How this belief can exist side by side with all the vendetta killing and rage against the western world killing their people (justified or not) is beyond me, but it is an interesting thing to consider.

I hope so, as from what I've seen of it it is a truly great series (been watching it from episode 1 on Cartoon Network). It should be talked about more I think.

Quote by GottanameBut given the situation, I think world war III maybe near if bush continues going around like a bull in a china shop (no pun intended). And trust me, one day america will have to pay for it's arrogance, sept 11 may just be the start of it.

What arrogance? What makes America's arrogance any different or worse than the arrogance shown by any country, be it China crushing student protests in the 80s or Middle-East peoples believing the western world is the reason they are not global super powers?

Regardless, no amount of "arrogance" merits the pointless purposeful killing of thousands of people who have nothing to do with the grievance and are of no threat. What you're saying just seems quite illogical and ignores all other points of view. America is powerful and therefore gets the blame for many things, but seldom is anything only one country or one person's fault.

Quote: Ask any soldier as to whether he wants to fight. Any soldier can tell you that although he is trained to kill if necessary, he would not want a war unless it can be helped. Right now due to how america and american society has become dedecant and to a certain extent, arrogant, soldiers in iraq are losing their lives over oil just to keep the american corporate machine alive.

How can it really be all about oil when if anything invading Iraq costed the U.S. oil?

Quote: If you asked me, it's about time the US re-thinks what it's doing before the US really starts world war III.

Doing what? Much of the muslim world hated America before the iraq war and still do today, there is just new stuff to talk about. And regardless of criticism most all countries are for measures to reduce terrorism, so how exactly is America's actions going to do anything to start a global war?

Quote by midnightLOVERSall i have to say is this. who is the idiot that said one can control their dreams!? i want to meet that person and see if they could ever control their dreams. i mean how can you. i thought we could but then i realized that dreams controlling is probably never going to happen. when one sleeps the enter a stage of mental unconsciousness where the minds just stops all voluntary funtions. so how can you control anything then?

Lucid dreaming is a scientifically recognized phenomenon. Contrary to popular belief one is not unconscious when asleep, sleep is simply another level of consciousness. This is why people can hear things while asleep, respond to pain, even open their eyes and sleep walk.

And "thinking while sleeping" doesn't make much sense as dreams are essentially your own thoughts, though often symbolic in nature.

Essentially, lucid dreaming is defined as a dream where one realizes they are dreaming and can thus control what occurs in the dream. Think about your dreams, quite often (in my experience) you are quite alert during them but simply don't realize it is a dream (despite the fact you are watching such odd things occur). There are even tests one can do to prove they are in a dream, i.e the famous pinch test to see if they feel pain.

Thus realizing you are in a dream is all it takes to control that dream. People still have nightmares simply because what is in a dream can seem so real no matter how bizarre it is, and when you're scared to death you're not going to be wondering if something is real or not.

I myself have realized I was in a dream a few times in my life (once having enough time before waking up to make myself fly through the air in the dream), but much more common is the dream where you wake up in the dream and think about the dream you just had, not realizing you are still dreaming! The dream within the dream as it were, which can occur with nightmares where a person wakes up in the dream many times to experience the same nightmare.

Quote by leonardobarbaPremarital sex isn't wrong. I believe it isn't immoral too, because I don't believe in a Creator who made sex this fantastic experience only for reproductive purpose. Sex and love are different, separate things. I wouldn't be concerned about my girlfriend or bride virginity; however, I would respect and act according her opinion. I'm really concerned about preteens having sex due to lack of parents' care and love or miseducation.

A lot of people seem to have a basic misunderstanding here. Its not that the Bible says sex is only for reproductive purposes (ever read Song of Solomon?), only that it is a very special thing that should not be misused.

And I really hate these constant remarks (not by you but others) about going to Hell. At least get your facts straight about the religion you're speaking of. According to the Bible any sin results in going to Hell, premarital sex has no special "ultimate sin" privilege. And while a Christian has a right and an obligation to judge right and wrong to an extent, they also must recognize that according to the Bible the person's fate will ultimately be between them and God and that God wil judge them according to their hearts. Therefore the fire and brimstone teachings some christians use are both counterproductive and ill-conceived.

Its even debateable that the Bible says sex should not ever occur before marriage, its hard to say when one considers dating didn't exactly usually occur in those societies. What is clear is that what the Bible condemns most isn't some legalistic "no sex before marriage" violation but rather it condemns promiscuity, the abuse of something that is supposed to stengthen bonds between partners, among other things.

<><><>

But really people should focus more on the proven scientific facts about this debate rather than getting distracted by debate on religion as it is more productive for the topic at hand. Such as:

1. People who wait until marriage are more likely to stay married.

2. Premarital/casual sex is the main cause of the proliferation of STDs in Western societies.

3. Being promiscuous can have serious emotional consequences.

Thanks to anyone who bothered to read this far. I know I ramble.

Quote by wanderingknightMan is not tainted. I'm tired of this idea of the rooted evil of mankind. Everyone (and I mean everyone) acts according to the enviroment where everyone lives and grows. Such as an animal has to adapt to the enviroment in order to strive and survive, so does man. But, man has a difference: he can create his own enviroment. He can modify the structures, so that there is no place for this 'rooted evil' everyone is out there talking about. If we just remember that there are things that are actually wrong, that there are a set of morals that have to be followed to achieve universal convivence, we may see that it isn't all fault of a supposed inner evil. If we just forget our everyday boundaries and dream of a world without the limits that today's society presses on our minds, then we may be a step closer to a perfect society.

Regardless of religion, accepting that humans are flawed creatures is pretty essential to living at all successfully, and I don't see how this can be argued. Your theory seems to state that if everyone lived in the same ideal environment, so-called human flaws would not manifest (forgive me if I interpreted this wrongly).

But any look at people growing up in similar homes, in similar neighborhoods shows they can result in very different people, even people who live in the same home, go to the same school etc. There are the murderers who were never mistreated or in want, came from good families, never got in trouble and such just as there are delinquent kids from inner cities who become great religious or cummunity leaders.

Frankly I don't see how any environment can ever be made where all humans can get what they want, especially when so much of what so many want effects what others want. If you want to make comparisons to animals the result is the same. It doesn't matter what environment my pet dog is in or how well he is fed, he'll still hoard any food he gets and try to snatch what he can from any other dog he can. Selfishness is as instinctual in humans as altruism is, if not more so, hence the great paradox that is humanity.o_0

I think I agree with what one wise man once said (I forget who though unfortunately ), "Capitalism is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms."

Quote by wanderingknightWell, that's one point up, and one point down. I like that someone finally gets over the damn Nietzchian conception that denies the existance of morals, but you have to recognise that the US aren't doing war "for the good of the world". They are doing it because they like things good for them. If it means killing thousands of people in the way (and hiding it from most public), they don't care.

Well true enough about having its own interest at heart, but that doesn't change the fact that at least some of the people involved in this want to help Iraq too, and that a great amount of good has been done there.

I just think that most people when talking about the Iraq war (and most issues in general) simplify things far too much and act like other perspectives/evidence etc. does not exist.

<><><>

And noting the earlier post about Canada invading the U.S., isn't that a bit nonsensical? The country is quite open about possessing powerful weapons, no suspicion is required. Incidentally, it seems Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, left over from before the Gulf War, they were just "probably" too old to be used. Then there's that whole account of weapons being moved out of Iraq before the invasion, but that's a topic for another day.

What happened to this being a non-serious, political thread? If that's even possible, such topics as this seem to always turn into rambling posts full of random insults. I feel compelled to state a few things from the other side of the debate before giving my humorous answer.

Namely on the rant about American soldiers killing civilians. Of course it has happened, some have been criminally charged, but largely such things are tragically accidental. What I don't like being ignored is how these "insurgents" who supposedly want what is best for their country and to drive foreigners away, seem to be killing far more civilians and their own people than U.S. forces.

And really, to say the U.S. has no right to judge the actions of other countries is a bit hypocritical, even naive. If only the fully innocent were allowed to judge right and wrong, no evil deed would be punished, at least in this life. Even if full of hypcorisy, botched moves and double sstandards I much prefer a country that at least tries to ease human suffering rather than ignoring or condoning it. People like to think that if we all minded our own business the world would spin around happily ever after, but if anything powerful countries have a responsibility to help weaker ones, be it those suffering under disease or poverty or under the rule of brutal dictators. WEhether it is done rightly or not will be up to future generations to judge.

<><><>

On topic, I say invade the Komodo Islands and make them a part of the United States, then make the Komodo Dragon the state symbol/animal. Come on, it'd be cool to have Komodo as part of our country!