Ammunition > Heroics

OK, so first of all, check out this website. Scroll to the bottom and read the part about Ness, Lucario, and Jigglypuff being confirmed.
I'm not accepting this as a totally official, undeniable confirmation, but it probably is true. All the evidence points to it; they took the video off really quickly, and they really don't have any reason to not put them in. Jigglypuff was one of those you figured would be in from the start (along with Captain Falcon, though he hasn't been confirmed yet), and people would get mad if they totally replaced Ness with Lucas. With Lucario, that's slightly more obscure, but it makes tons of sense (and personally, I'm thrilled; he was on that list I did earlier). He's a good representative of the newest "generation" of Pokemon, and he's a fighting-type and is humanoid, so he'd work really well. Basically, though, now there's only one more "do-duh-totally-obvious-shoo-in" (or is it shoe-in?) character left that wasn't in the previous games; cell-shaded, Wind Waker / Phantom Hourglass Link. PH is the newest Zelda game and they'll probably want to represent it well (just like I was saying with Pokemon), and they seem to be trying to avoid clones, so he'd make a ton of sense too, as a replacement of their previous "young link."
So what about the other characters from the first games? Well, this is what I think.
Captain Falcon: He simply has to be in there, there's no possible reason they wouldn't put him in.
Dr. Mario: He almost certainly won't be in it as a separate character. Maybe as an alternate costume for Mario, but it is possible he won't return at all.
Luigi: They would be demented to not put in Luigi. Almost any game with Mario has Luigi in it too. They are the Mario Brothers, after all. Luigi would be the character that would make the most sense as a clone; it'd even be excusable in his case, since even in the actual Mario games he has abilities very similar to Mario's, but different attributes. Still, it'd be neat to see him use different stuff, like his vacuum cleaner.
Falco: This one I'm not too sure about. They very well could put him in and give him a new moveset, but the likelihood of him coming back as a Fox clone is very poor.
Ganondorf: Ganondorf will also almost certainly be put in. With the new Final Smashes, he could even transform into Ganon, which would be superawesome. Again, probably he'll have a new moveset. He needs swords, certainly.
Young Link: Like I just said, Young Link will probably be replaced by WW/PH Link.
Marth: Marth was a really cool character, and there's no evidence to suggest he's been replaced by Ike, since they have totally different movesets. Marth will probably make it into the game.
Roy: As one of the cloniest clones, Roy will probably not be returning.
Mewtwo: Mewtwo is another character that has no reason to not come back. He'll also almost certainly be in Brawl.
Pichu: I didn't mind Pichu all that much, but I guess I have to admit he was pretty annoying. While it was interesting that all of his special moves harmed him, there weren't any advantages big enough to justify it. Pichu will probably be getting the axe.
Mr Game and Watch: I really liked this character; he was interesting and unique. Most other people liked him too, so I don't see him being cut.
...And that's all of them. Not actually as many as I thought there were. Anyway, once they announce WW/PH Link (or his inclusion is leaked unofficially), I can rest a bit better and be fairly certain this game is going to be totally awesome. Even without him, it's been turning out to look really excellent, and the apparent inclusion of Lucario has gotten me even more excited. We still have another month (plus a bit) to wait, but oh well. Within the next week we'll at least get to see the final roster (The game will be released in Japan on the 31st). The only question now is whether I have enough patience to listen to my brother John's repeated questions and speculations about the game (most of which are completely ridiculous). Seriously, he mentions the game in one out of three sentences he says (literally... almost, anyway).

Anyway, I had some other topics for today, but I went farther into that than I expected, so I forgot what they were. Oh, yes, of course; politics.
Today's big topic is why I hate the election "season." It lasts two years, but I'm going to call it a "season" because I dunno what else to call it.
I know there are probably a lot of people who hate it, like me, and then people who just love it, and others who are indifferent. Well, here's why I hate it. Firstly, it's all we hear about for ages. It's like the most important thing suddenly. I mean, yes, it's very important; it's the leadership of our country we're talking about, after all. But it is it the only important thing, the most important thing, in the entire world? Definitely not. Still, it pushes everything else out of the way, and I suddenly have trouble hearing about other news and issues that aren't related to the election, and not just now, but like this time last year even. Well, maybe not that far back, but it does seem to start way too early. Anyhow, the other big reason I hate it is that it starts these huge arguments. The candidates start bickering and attacking each other, and suddenly the voters are bickering and attacking each other too, and people who used to be friends start hating each other. It totally divides people, and it's not like something that heals when the election is over; people are still sore for a very long time afterwards. So, personally, I just can't stand the "I hate hate hate hate this candidate!" stuff. I mean, you may disagree with someone, and you can have strong opinions about it, but is it really necessary to start chucking things through windows about it? I'm thinking probably not.

Now on to my second politics-related subject, which is rather morbid; being death. A lot of people are probably going to be really mad at me for what I'm going to say here, so if you think that's going to be you, I'm politely (but somewhat forcefully) requesting that you just skip this part, because I'm not really in a mood to be listening to it.
Anyway, three big issues these days are euthanasia, abortion, and the death penalty. I think, regarding the first two, that we shouldn't just kill people off because we think they are incapable of deciding whether they want to live or expressing their desire to live. To me, killing is not just tearing away a life. Removing opportunities to live is killing, too, so that certainly includes euthanasia and abortion. Particularly with abortion; regardless of whether you think that unborn child is a child or not, when you kill them, you're killing them. That's one life that never was. I call that killing. Now, if there's, say, someone really old or ill (or both), and they say "I'm done. I don't want to live." then there's not much of a reason to give them something they don't want. I think this is very different than suicide, because this would be like where they're saying, "Hey, you're spending too much money and time keeping me alive; it's not worth it." rather than "I hate my life. It's time to die." Now, about the death penalty. This is a bit trickier, but think about something. If someone has killed someone else, would it be better to put them in prison, where they could possibly escape and/or kill more people? Or would it be better to execute them? So maybe they're truly sorry and repentant. Well, what I believe is that Jesus died to wipe out all sin; God can forgive anyone. So if this repentant person is going to be executed, (s)he can know where (s)he'll be when (s)he dies.

Anyway, I'm done for today. This one was kinda longish, wasn't it? At least a little bit, right? Yay!

:::Source= Paul M-unit 19.91 MKII
...es no mas...