Great. Just scroll down my blog, and you'll see why I'm pissed. I've been doing this blog for…like two years now? More than two years, but it's morning and my math-thinking skills haven't turned on. Anyways, this is the worst change I've seen to 64D in…well, ever.

Yeah, I haven't been that active, but that doesn't stop me from being angry that my old blogs posts have been ruined now that HTML is mostly banned. Just look at Page Two; every time I've ever used a fieldset tag, the post is effectivly ruined.

I'm sure that people are abusing HTML, because n00bs suck and all, but is that reason to take away HTML from <i>everyone</i>?

Could there be some way that, like, you can disable HTML unless somebody requests it, and then you can turn it on for that person only? Or maybe make all members that joined before (today's date + [amount of time, like a year]) get HTML abliities?

I don't feel like going back and recoding my blog and it's large amount of posts because of this new rule.

Well…yeah, that really doesn't count as a blog, more of an angry rambling, so now it's time for a blog.

<b>[Warning: Democrat flaming ahead]</b>

Election day today, and I'm sorry to say that more and more people are trying to keep our troops from dying on the battlefront, while at the same time trying to legalize the ability to murder babies before they have a chance to do anything in the world.

See, here in South Dakota we're having this thing, Referred Law Six or something, and it's trying to repeal our state-wide abortion ban. Yes, we have a state-wide abortion ban; that's about the only cool thing about South Dakota (other than Mount Rushmore (and me [^^])).

In short, if you vote "yes" on six, then you're voting to <i>not</i> repeal the ban, while voting "no" <i>will</i> repeal the ban.

It seems like every single girl at school (in my year at least) is pro-choice, that is to say, anti-life. They're focusing on the fact that the ban <i>doesn't</i> allow abortion in the case of incest, rape, or any other ugly situations. While I do agree that this could be somewhat bad, should we really agree to legalize baby-killing in general just to save these few women? Yes, I'd be all for voting "no" on Six, if it meant that we'd still keep abortion illegal in all other cases. But people who kill babies for <i>convenience</i> before they have a chance in the world while trying to <i>prevent</i> their previously non-aborted children from serving our country (which I will admit isn't that great, what with all the fucktard countries who won't admit that we're trying to help them) just make me sick.

For other things we're voting on…well, that's the major one. There's also this wierd thing about some California politician who's trying to pass some wierd thing where criminals can sue people after they've been incarcerated, among other things (like the multi-million funding for an "almost-grand jury" that goes along with this retardedness), but I believe that my fellow South Dakotains (lol?) won't vote on such foolishness.

Yeah, that was an angry rant too, but it sort of constitutes a blog post. Meh.

Give us our HTML back!

<b>[EDIT: To clafify, voting on Six <i>will</i> allow mothers whose lives are in danger to abort the child, if they so wish. But my mother risked her life to save me; the doctors at the hospital said she would die within twenty-four hours if she went through with having me. We're both alive and well, and I think she's a great mom for doing that for me.]</b>