Drix D'Zanth

I'm going to keep this brief in order to give other's an opportunity to post their opinions before I post mine. My question for today is how you percieve the nature and direction of healthcare in the United States, and in smaller part the rest of the world? The greater issue involving healthcare in the past few years concerned the rise in malpractice lawsuit. Nowadays, many americans are beginning to sway closer and closer to socialized healthcare, much like what Canada has. Though this election will be dealing more about perscription drug coverages and medicare, the possibility of Hillary taking up the 2008 ticket could threaten to change healthcare in dynamically worse or better ways (depending on your opinions) for the first time since her hubbie's instatement of HMOs. Any thoughts? Edit: No one has any opinion on national healthcare? -__- God save the USA...

[quote name='DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "We are the world", eh? Sorry, but i make distinctions between the Earth and Life on Earth and us. To Earth and it's Life, we're not that super special.[/color][/size'][/font][/quote] Really? Consider this: In nature, everything has a balance, something required to maintain it's survival and be maintained. Even the highest planes of the food chains fail to run rampant because of defense mechanisms in their prey. (Lions, even if they wanted to , could not destroy the gazelle population). Humans are different. We are the single species on earth that has no evolutionary check and balance. We could theoretically engineer the destruction of anything we please, species or whatnot. Now, I doubt we'd be able to engineer the destruction of our entire planet... still. We are unique in that respect.

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud][color=indigo']If you are straight or gay hurrah for you. I think that either condition is a perfectly natural and probably genetic trait. [/color][/quote] The only genetic trait that one inherits upon conception that deals with sexual orientation is a penis, vagina, and the ticking time bomb called [i]adolescence[/i]. As far as I'm concerned, experimentation isn't something I would say is morally right. I'm with Boba Fett on this issue.. too many people today are *******.To say that it is natural to screw a member of the same gender is like saying it's natural to screw a hole in a tree. People's conception of sex is turning into an idea that it just "occurs" and people have no choice where they put their dicks today. That's an awfully sad thought.

The worlds ending? My God. I should probably go inhale some "greenhouse gas" that sephiroth_unite was talking about, maybe that'll anethstetize me enough so I'll die peacefully. I love this talk of ozone destruction and the using of natural resources. The gigantic hole in the ozone is shrinking, and was found in the mid 70's (so we saw how friggin huge it was in the first place, instead of it "growing"). There are more trees in the United States today than in 1900 AD. If we use up all of the earth's Oil, so what? We have to (and will) develop alternate energy means and the Mideast will lose their trump card. The endangered species list? A tiny fraction of those species are mammals, larger creatures that have to do with anything. Instead, our donations go to save some sort of crustacean or insect (which make up over 70% of the list, last time I checked). The world's going to outlast us unless we surgically annihilated the entire surface, and somehow made entire oceans un-inhabitable. What exactly does the Moon have that we could ever care to mine? Metals? High density rock? *Sigh* No, the only reason we'll go to space is for corporations to hang their billboards for all the world to see (a la fight club). I believe in Revelations.. the world will end when God wants it to.

Ok... This is the epitomy of what NOT to do on otakuboards. -Do not double post. -Mind post quality. -Make threads more exclusive to those who actually have a central nervous system. -i.e. Don't make "just for the hell of it" threads. Have a point. -POST QUALITY This thread is a rotting dung heap in OB's poor lounge. Have you no shame? Closed.

Heheh, Vampires. I actually ran a Vampire the Masquerade game on OB (or tried to ) a while back. I still play it with my friends. There?s something especially lurid and sexual about a Vampire that makes it more ?. Interesting than, say, the Wolfman. Playing a vampire in a roleplaying game is always fun. Yet, as Chibi has already mentioned, you will meet some VERY weird people when messing around Vampire lore. People DO become so obsessed with vampires that they will cut themselves, cut you, or try to bite you? funny until someone?s admitted to the ER with their corotid artery cut and passing into cardiac arrest from blood loss. As for good vampire movies: the best is by far "Interview With a Vampire". Which leads to my next point, Anne Rice. Anne Rice is the queen of goth/vampire reading material. Not that she is necessarily attempting to act as a keystone to that particularly angsty community. She just writes very, very well. I?ve read all her work, and not one book has really let me down.

Esoteric. That?s About all I?ve to say about popularity or being "cool". I sincerely suggest anyone who is truly concerned about their social status in any sort of education environment follow these instructions: 1)Locate *** 2)Remove Head. Popularity is not the key to success, neither is being "cool". The coolest people I know are those who don?t really give a damn about how the majority of people perceive them. In order to be cool you have to piss off a lot of people. By the way, no one is going to care if you were voted homecoming queen when you reach college. As I grow up and understand more and more about the way people act, I?ve come to understand that the less pretense you put on anyone or any situation, the greater you?ll enjoy your life. The more and more you try to characterize yourself as a "something", the more you?ll be restricted to the wayward glances of the critical eye. High school is brutal. Kids will hate you for no other reason than to have someone to hate. The sooner you relish the fact that someone hates you, and put that behind you, the sooner you?ll be free to explore and define the person you want to be. Unless you are a movie star, rock star, or highly respected public figure; you really aren?t that popular at all and whatever social success you worked [I]so hard[/I] to accomplish is infinitesimal compared to a good best friend. Get your priorities straight before you waste away what could be some great years of your life.

I empathize with poor Xion here. It seems that no one is really taking this thread seriously, and it might be interesting to see what kind of match-ups you people could concoct. I would hate to close this thread for the actions of a specific few. My matchups: I would like to see a Water Buffalo fight a full grown, stadium worthy Spanish Bull. Both are incredibly dangerous creatures (the water Buffalo can tear apart a full grown lion) and the fight would be fairly brutal... I would also like to see a Wolverine fight a Tasmanian Devil. Both are extremely vociferous rodents, and known for their insanely belligerent attitudes towards anything within their immediate vicinities. While we're on the topic of animal combat, have any of you seen two giraffes fight? It's the most insane thing I've ever seen. The two bull giraffes litteraly hurl their necks against eachother until one breaks.... That's brutal.

I would wish for a multitude of threads that bring up new, and involved discussion. Where the members of OB may engage in thorough discussion over more-than-inane topics that tend to breed spammy, one-sentence posts. Closed.

[QUOTE=Shinken] Part of the article deals with Christian Reconstructionists, a group that basically wants to throw out the US constitution, and make the United States a Christian autocratic theocracy (read: One guy ruling over the US, which would be only for Christians). Now, usually, one takes news of these people with more than a pinch of salt, but when (as mentioned in the article) you hear that Bush 1.0 gives financial aid to a reconstructionist minister, and both Bushes are close friends/ "spiritual allies" (I believe the article said) with the man, it adds some reality to the situation. Bush's ties to evangelical Christianity are, for all intents and purposes, his business. Until he starts trying to force the tenets of his particular faith (especially those concerning gays) on a nation whose population is not entirely Christian. Thus, the separation of Church and State does seem to be falling apart in this country. Hopefully it doesn't take a turn for the Mid-Eastern worse. (I know it sounds like I'm being pessimistic in the extreme, but I'm only drawing a comparison) *sits back and waits for the huge amount of pro-Bush, anti-Clarke/Kerry/anything-anti-Bush backlash* [/quote] What you must realize is that as long as certain religious organizations are open to government funding, any president can push the agenda to fund them. Don?t feel threatened by the "reconstructionists". As far as I?m concerned, they are shooting for an impossible goal, concerning the first amendment. You are talking about a radical circumstance. Bush and this reverend are Christians?. They are "spiritual allies". Being a "spiritual ally" does not amend the constitution. The constitution was set up by Christians acknowledging God?s plan, as well as the Atheistic agenda. God gave us free will, and as a Christian, I would advocate for a government to allow the freedom to choose a religion, as much as I?d like for people to be Christian. Nothing is "falling apart". The country has been far more "religious" in the past, and far "less" religious in the past. It takes more than popular sovereignty to change the first amendment. As for separation of church and state? I recommend you re-read the little paraphrase in the Constitution concerning that issue. If anything, it protects the church. [quote name='ScirosDarkblade']So you're saying that without the line "endowed by our Creator" the rights enumerated would be unjustified? There's no way that's what you mean, because it's ridiculous. "Unalienable rights" exist to create order in a society. THAT is the actual justification for them. The Declaration of Independence has that line for the same reason our money has "in god we trust" on it -- the people who created it were Christians. That's all.[/quote] Ah, but society has existed LONG before anyone was considered to have rights. The social contract, that we created acknowledged the dignity of humanity. However, as we have seen, we cannot justify our own freedoms at all. Look at history.. who says we deserve to live equally? Martin Luther King Jr rallied his Civil Rights around the Biblical principle that "all men are created equal". All men are, Christian or Atheist, but past governments have failed to recognized that, historically. Governments today don?t recognize that, still? the US has been pretty much a forerunner in the Locke, Hobbes, (etc) philosophies. It just took a group of Christians (and deists) to put it on paper, heh? It?s all a perception of truth, and a question of truth. The Bible says "thou shalt not kill". It always has said that. It always will say that. The constitution will always uphold the citizen?s right to life. An atheistic philosophy has no bearing against the argument of another atheistic philosophy, it?s only a matter of opinion. I am relieved, they left "life" to an esoteric "Creator? instead of opinion. [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] When you say atheism is a belief system, what exactly does that classification mean? Does it mean that it's "baseless" or as devoid of proof as any "theistic belief system"? It seems you are of the bunch that think it takes just as much "faith" to be atheist as it does to be religious. On the contrary, the atheist perspective is that one can't assume something unless certain evidence points in its direction. It's a scientific approach. It's true that one can't "disprove" the existence of a god, but that's a pretty empty statement because one likewise can't "disprove" the existence a planet ruled by apes. [/QUOTE] The proving of religion, or atheism is irrelevant. Proving something that deliberately refuses any faith-based obligation is also a waste of ATP? why you brought that up is beyond me. Are you also going to say that a scientific approach supports the atheistic theory? =-Warning: Actual scientific knowledge coming up? those of low or apathy-impaired IQs may suffer random epilepsy bouts, or aneurysms-= I sincerely suggest people read into it a bit more. Here?s a little statistic for you: the simplest Genome (prokaryotic bacteria) consists of a very specific array of amino acids. Nothing preceded this bacteria? i.e no evolution. So this means, the amino acids had to line up PERFECTLY in order for the organism to survive. The chances of that this event would have occurred on it?s own.. randomly (as scientology evolution ) is 1/10^170?. IT would take more particles than are assumed to exist in the KNOWN UNIVERSE to get this combination RANDOMLY RIGHT. I?ll illustrate this in words: the possible number of ways the amino acids could have been arranged (considering the mechanisms of the bacteria it had to be in a SINGLE PERFECT ORDER) is one hundred million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion ways the amino acids could arrange in the 130 slots of the gene? If that?s not faith-based? I don?t know WHAT is. [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] Which brings us to agnosticism. In my view, it's not much more than a coward's atheism, and neither a scientific nor a faith-based approach to the idea of a god. It's an avoidance of considering the subject altogether. I don't see how it confuses you less than atheism does. [/QUOTE] No, because an agnostic can believe that there "might" be a God.. or something higher than us, and just may hold contempt for the society that nurtures said religion. In my opinion, Agnosticism is looking in the other direction for an indefinite amount of time, Atheism is gouging one?s eyes out. [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] As for justifying rights based on atheism, well that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You can't base anything on atheism, because it's not a base to work off. All it is is the idea that no supreme being exists. A-theism. Of course it doesn't imply any rights. Those have to be thought of and enumerated by a society. If someone thinks it takes a religious set of beliefs to justify social rights, then that someone is very ignorant. The Soviet Union was, for all intents and purposes, an atheist nation. By far the majority was atheist, including the government. So did nobody have any rights? Was it some anarchistic wasteland? Was it some crime-ridden warzone? No. In fact, the Soviet constitution was extremely similar in the rights it addressed (and protected) to the U.S. one. .[/QUOTE] If you lived in the soviet Union? you had no individual freedoms. Your rights to privacy didn?t exist. The Soviet union was an Autocracy under Stalin, and an Oligarchy under the Kremlin? atheism existed because religion wasn?t allowed. You said it well enough, Atheists can think for themselves, but they cannot think "against" each other. Without having some sort of higher power? you have no absolute truth. This is huge.. this absolute truth. As far as most of the world is concerned, it DID take the US to stand up and say "The creator endowed us with the right to life, liberty, and the freedom of happiness." Religion, however esoterically it had been approached, does validate these rights. [QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade] Moving on, if you're referring to the Constitution as the "absolute medium of truth" that doesn't bind people to a certain religion, then you're ignoring the fact the Constitution is open to interpretation, which is influenced by someone's religion. And when a decision based on that interpretation is made (by Congress, or by the Supreme Court), then everyone IS BOUND to it. The more an interpretation is influenced by religion, the less of a separation between church and state we have. That's when people like me start complaining. I hope that makes sense.[/QUOTE] Of course it?s open to interpretation! Have you seen how short the document is? I understand it?s rough dealing with the fact that people will use their religions to justify their decision making. The inevitable fact is that this case is unavoidable and respected under the constitution. Saying "I don?t believe we should kill because I think it?s wrong" and "I don?t believe we should kill because God says it?s wrong" are both valid arguments, and neither can be ignored. I know that everyone is afraid of losing their precious separation of church and state.. I understand that it.. "hangs in the balance".. I?m saying that people vastly overestimate that, and as a result lash out at anything having to do with religion, valid viewpoint or no.

Oh great? church and state? As for Jeb Bush?s policies, I?d only support them in consideration of popular sovereignty. I?m not a big fan of the "rehabilitation" prison system. I?m more advocate of the metal 5x3 box, bread and water, system. One must approach religion and state with a certain amount of stoicism. All peoples, including the highest form of government are entitled to their personal rights; speech, religion, etc. Consider religion for a moment. It is a system of moral beliefs, not necessarily associated with a higher power. Moral translates into "right and wrong". If President Bush extrapolates his information from a moral system, whether that be religion or not. He does his job well, in my opinion. [QUOTE=Shinken] Also, I, along with many people, I'm sure, don't really appreciate being preached to. I respect your beliefs, and I encourage you to have them. However, I don't see why you have to push it upon others as the only way, and that their beliefs are wrong. It's irritating, for one thing, and it's also somewhat insulting, because you inadvertently stated that their religion is definitely wrong, and then you pulled out the dogma card. Not everyone (read: nobody) appreciates having their religion insulted, and then being told that there is only one way, etc. Please, Justin, refrain from pushing your beliefs on others. It's not really appreciated, and it's insulting.[/QUOTE] Holy crap, this irritates me. Once again, the "moral" litigation comes from the woefully oppressed! Oh, woe be me who is "forced" to reads Justin?s post. Is it anyone?s fault, but one?s own who would stay his hand? Shake your head in contempt all you want, his argument is as legitimate as yours. As soon as God comes into the picture, people start getting offended. Are you not pushing your beliefs as much as he? HOW do you justify your rights people? How can we justify our individual sovereignties? What dictates what we "deserve"? In spite of Adams and his denial, the country would be nothing without the serious contributions of not only Protestant British, but Catholic Portuguese, Spanish, and French. Our rights aren?t restricted to a belief system, Christian, Muslim, or otherwise. They do, however, recognize the inherent necessity for us to justify our own unalienable rights. How do we justify them? The Declaration of Independence declares our rights were "endowed by our Creator". Is atheism a belief system? OF COURSE IT IS! Is it a religion? That?s depends on your definition of religion. You see, atheism confuses me more than agnosticism does. How could one justify our rights based on atheism? Our current form of government establishes an absolute medium of truth [I]without[/I] necessitating the unity of it?s people to any religion. In short, why are we arguing about what theist principle (or atheist for that matter) derives the truth if we have the individual freedom to believe what we [b]choose[/b]. I say, nod your head in appreciation at the Judeo/Christian PHILOSOPHY, and quit overusing the trite "You are shoving religion down my throat" bid. And as for the Crusades; limiting it down to a question of religion or religious artifacts is absurd. The crusade is far more complex than a matter of religion. The fervor, of religiously "ordained" political systems only monopolized on the zeal of the states people. Justin was right in saying that both sides were wrong. What?s funny is that the Christians weren?t in the right according to their philosophy, but the Muslims were. Lastly, Chris, the Muslims were not at all "accepting" of other religions in the middle period of the 11th-15th centuries. Ever heard of the Moors? How about the Turks? Bedouins? Jihad was word of the day, and that meant killing or converting the "infidels". I?ll leave the details to the professionals: [url]http://historymedren.about.com/cs/crusades/index.htm?terms=the+crusades[/url] I have to drink a glass of water and read a bit of Franzen before I could bring myself to read this: "But, as it is, we all have two options: 1. Go through life happily not caring whether or not some one believes in the same things as you do. Or... 2. Get yourself worked up over something that you probably can't change anyway" I don?t know how you generalized something so obviously complex, unexplainable, and obscure as ones morality and religion? I would contest that if a society had picked option number one, it wouldn?t exist. I would also assert that you haven?t given relative opposites at all? as option number two is useless and obviously practiced by everyone who actually posted on this thread?

Threads like this make me fear for the future of the human race. (Note to self: close thread when using a computer OTHER than the one the crappy library has, that will allow me the option to actually load more than one webpage in a reasonable ammount of time.)

[quote name='pbfrontmanvdp']I dont know whether to laugh or cry with half the crap your saying. First off I only stated the first 2 paragraph to describe the feelings I have towards bush. The next paragraph explains how i feel about the "new ad" bush has. I mean come on, do you want like a friggen sign pointing to exactly what is what. And your saying i need spell check. [/quote] I state again.. this thread isn?t about our personal feelings for Bush. This has become another platform for Bush bashing, and a huge off-topic mess. As for the "paragraph" explaining how you feel about the ad.. all I could find pertaining to the actual ad was this "I have to agree with ChibiHW and say its pretty low to base most of his campaign in the direction of 9/11 and upgrading security around the nation". The rest is a boat ride around your opinions of the economy, war, etc. "And your saying i need spell check." Yes. Or at least a lesson in grammar. "I'm not sure of what exactly happen?" ß I rest my case. [QUOTE=pbfrontmanvdp] Once again your an idiot. What I stated there was my own opinion of how i felt bush did during his time in office. I never said it was related to his ad. Plus I know this part was off topic, I just wanted to tell everyone that the only good thing he has done in office was his reaction to 9/11 and as of right now thats the only thing his putting his campaign towards. [/QUOTE] That first line made me giggle. Especially since you admitted you were off topic? and continue to stray off topic?. [QUOTE=pbfrontmanvdp] Also, if you can't realize by now that the only reason we went to war with Iraq was because Bush senior persuaded Bush jr. too, then you need to open your mind a little more. [/QUOTE] Firstly, the next time you make claims like this? give it some evidence (the noise emitting from your *** gets really loud on some occasion). Secondly, I have concluded that my mind is perhaps TOO open to the refuse that everyone throws at me. I could?ve sworn I got an aneurysm reading some of your stuff. [QUOTE=pbfrontmanvdp] How the hell is this off topic. Once again the only good thing Bush has done while serving his first term in office was....9/11. Call me a bush basher if you want, I am and I really dont care what you think. Until you can prove that Bush has been a good president besides the point of the 9/11 crisis, then ill sitck with what I'm saying about the ad. [/QUOTE] You?ve repeated yourself three times on an issue that has nothing to do with this thread. Secondly, if you don?t care what I think.. then why do you bother debating your opinion? Wait.. don?t bother answering that, your opinion doesn?t matter, right? [QUOTE=pbfrontmanvdp] And about the spell check. What i spelt 2 words wrong, how about you grow up and realize some people make mistakes. We're all not perfect...oh wait nevermind you are. [/QUOTE] I try J. [QUOTE=pbfrontmanvdp] Dont make assumptions about what I am saying until I state it. Its a friggen presidental campaign, of course both sides will bash each other. I just want to clearly know the facts of what both parties are going to do if they get elected into office. [/QUOTE] I made no assumptions. I drew my own conclusions. This thread is not about the presidential race, or the office history of Bush, or your own vendetta for or against any party. [QUOTE=pbfrontmanvdp] Hers's an idea! Why don't you stop whining and quit complaing about "Bush Bashers". Your either a conservative, a moderate, or a liberal when it comes down to it. If you couldn't tell by now I am a liberal and I will bash Bush. Without his father, he probably wouldn't have been elected to run for president.[/QUOTE] Here?s an idea, why don?t you follow the rules here on OB. This means staying on topic. Why don?t you support your allegations and accusations against Bush in a logical or reasonable fashion? Why do you choose to resort to infantile flaming wars and mud slinging because I simply disagree with you? You can?t take your medicine? Take some responsibility for your actions and listen to what I have to say. I?ve said before: this thread has had some good points. Most notably CHW and deathbug. Boba and maladjusted also threw in some good stuff. You don?t seem to understand that when I?m serious about thread direction, and I ask for it to be moved on-topic, it should be. I?ve no personal agenda against this thread (heck, it?s been fairly conservatively dominated in my opinion, but no matter) or the people in it. So I?m going to close this thread. I?m going to recommend that pbfrontmanvdp change his attitude towards members (I?m not asking for inordinate amounts of respect, just the same as any member deserves) including myself. I hope the next Bush-related thread remains a bit more civil than this.

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]I'm afraid I'll have to dissagree with that remark. (and ask you to make your font bigger, the size makes my old eyes hurt) Kerry and Clark don't show pictures of soldiers being loaded into body bags in their ads. Sure, in one ad I saw on Monday you see Kerry in his BDUs looking at a camera, but there's nothing to suggest that Kerry could have won the war if he stayed in longer. I don't see that as profiting from the war. Also staying on that topic, I don't think Kerry tries to use the fact that he was a Luetenant to get his point across. [/QUOTE] Interestingly enough, you seem to be staying on the off-topic. (If his font bothers you.. change your resolution, copy paste onto word, or something of that nature. Your violet font gives my retriever epileptic seizures, but I don?t complain) No Kerry and Clark have plenty of opportunities to show of f their sparkling uniforms and smiling faces. They have plenty of time to show me their glorified image despite the horrific nature of the wars they fought in. You cannot refuse the tragedy that occurred on 9/11. I would think refusing to acknowledge the events that occurred in his presidency would be regarded as forgetting about the people that died during his presidency. Presidents are remembered by what happens during their term, 9/11 happened during his. Here?s the good part. You say Kerry and Clark aren?t profiting from their military careers, then move on to say "(I?d) ...focus on other things like maybe my military career". OF COURSE THEY ARE. Am I seeing a double-standard? It?s ok to use the war if you aren?t showing what happens during the war? It?s ok to show the glamorous images and ignore the fact that Kerry and Clark may be responsible for the deaths of people as well as Bush? I appreciate what Bush did at 9/11. He led the country well, and provided a strong foundation of leadership. He stood up to pressure and decisions that would probably cause you or I to crack! [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman] On that same note if Bush wanted to use his military career as a spring board, I don't think there'd be a problem there. either[/color] [/QUOTE] Would your vote change based on his past service in the military? What I?ve seen is more or less a character assassination. Hell, the democrats have virtually [I]demanded[/I] that Bush give out his entire military record. Suddenly, he wasn?t in the army "enough" for most people. [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman] I feel that Bush is using the fact that he was in office during 9/11 to gain votes and so do many other people who saw this ad (use the link on my post and read, or go to google). The line that I'm talking about states that: 'I will not use my rank for personal gain, which is what Bush seems to be doing.[/color] [/QUOTE] He?s using the events of 9/11 for perfectly legitimate professional gain. Don?t fail to make the distinction between personal and professional. [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman] [color=darkviolet]Not to sound rude, but if my 'finest hour', as you so eloquently put it, involved such tradgedy, I'd put it far behind me and focus on other things like maybe my military career, or my academic career or maybe other accomplishments that I made during my first term as president. I'd show some class and leave out human tradgedy.[/color] [/QUOTE] Wouldn?t it be nice to pretend that that never happened? Wouldn?t it be great to think that the dynamics of foreign policy would be changed? The real tragedy would be forgetting what happened. Let?s learn from the past and trudge forward. [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman] [color=darkviolet]I admit that maybe I didn't choose the questions very well, and I do appologize for that. But I do think it's absurd to say that al this is is tryiong to bash bush. Believe me If I wanted to, I would, but I think we should all try to be above all that. I don't think he's wrong because he's Bush, I think he's wrong because he didn't think about how his message would affect other people, and that's something you really have to consider when your president.[/color][/QUOTE] Of course you don?t like Bush. Taking his integrity into question over these advertisments is a legitimate reason. The problem is, everyone on this thread with any sort of vendetta against bush has taken this as an opportunity to cite (what they believe are) his failings. Let?s talk about the advertisement and stay on topic. Observe one who doesn?t like to stay on topic. [quote name='pbfrontmanvdp']Well first off ill say that i pretty much despise Bush for most of what he has done in office for his first term. However, i have to give the man .........credit that he did a great job with handling 9/11 and the speeches he gave during that time were probably the best he has ever given. [/quote] Off to a legitimate start. You can ? despise Bush, but is that what the topic is about? [QUOTE=pbfrontmanvdp] After that though, i kinda got pissed off when i found out we were going to war with Iraq to "stop biological weapons" being mass-produced in Saddam's palaces. I knew before hand that he was going to do this since his father (probably demanding George W. Bush) couldn't finish it and what best but to get his son to do the job for him. [/QUOTE] And it starts. What does the war on Iraq have anything to do with Bush?s advertising policy? As far as I can tell.. he?s not mentioned it in an advertisement yet. Every single democratic candidate has taken a nice block to mention the war in Iraq from their opinion. [QUOTE=pbfrontmanvdp] Anyway though, i dont want to completely bash him so ill move on to the topic of the ad. I have to agree with ChibiHW and say its pretty low to base most of his campaign in the direction of 9/11 and upgrading security around the nation. Of course this is the biggest tradgedy to happen in America, but you can only do so much to stop terrorism. [/QUOTE] Within the same paragraph? not 3 sentences later, he flies off topic.. [QUOTE=pbfrontmanvdp] The economy is in such **** right now and i dont exactly see it going up?. [Insert political rhetoric] ?. I'm not sure of what exactly happen, but millions of citizens who have been working in the same companies for decades are losing their jobs and therefore losing their pension. [/QUOTE] "Damn those damnable commercials!" Now, I know you feel strongly about this.. but stay on topic, and use spell-check. [QUOTE=pbfrontmanvdp] I also dont want him to base his ad's on bashing just Kerry as well. That would pretty much get him no where. [/QUOTE] Cause we all know Kerry doesn?t bash him! [QUOTE=pbfrontmanvdp] The only reason i would want to vote for him again, is if he gives solutions of trying to decrease the amount of unemployment in America right now. That should be the biggest issue on both sides of the spectrum, and as of right now i only see Kerry trying to solve the problem.[/QUOTE] See what I mean? If you want to start a bush-bashing thread? go for it. As for this thread, stay on topic and avoid the Bush bashing. CHW you?ve had some legitimate points, just be careful not to contradict yourself. Don?t forget, a lot of families appreciate the action Bush took after 9/11. Caution yourself against falling under the notion that the American people share your opinion. "I think he's wrong because he didn't think about how his message would affect other people, and that's something you really have to consider when your president." Perhaps the message didn?t affect other people in the same manner it effected you.

Name: Vegita-san Age: 52 Bio: Bejiita "Vegita"- Vegita is the Prince of the former Saiya-jin race. He was born in 732 AD and was destined for greatest when as a child, his power level exceeded that of even his father's. Vegita comes to Earth, with his former bodyguard Nappa, searching for Dragon Balls so that he can become immortal. However, as we all know, his plan is foiled when Gokou shows starts to show up, but he comes to the realization that the Planet Nameck must have Dragon Balls as well, so he loses interest in the ones on Earth and after getting rejuvinated from his fight with Gokou, he heads over to Nameck where he eventually meets up with his old adversaries and is forced to team up with them. After the Freeza saga, Vegita is basically stuck on Earth, (although in the anime he flies around the Universe searching for Gokou), so he learns to live with it. He really doesn't care about the Earth, and he probablly would destroy it, if he didn't feel the need to defend his pride and become stronger so that he can face off against Gokou again and beat him. Vegita is pulled into the fights against the Androids, Cell and the like because he feels the need to establish his superiority, not because he has any regard for Earth. However, eventually he reforms himself and fights for the sake of the Earth when he envokes his suicidal attack to kill Buu. He later admits his faults, including the fact that Gokou has always been stronger than him, and is ressurected when all the GOOD people who died since Buu arrived are brought back to life. Vegita does marry Buruma, although the exact date is unknown. It can be assumed that it was sometime between the end of the Cell Saga, and before the Buu Saga. Description: He wears more typical human attire of recent. He does, however, have a blue body suit that he could utilize instead of the more clumsy human wear. His hair hasn't changed, and he doesn't have a mustache (much to the ire of GT fans, no doubt). His hair is still jet black, and his Saiya-jin blood has delayed his aging. Relation to Original Character: Uhh.. Prince of the late King Vegita of planet Vegita... Skills: Kikou Ha,Yubisaki kara no Kikou Ha (fingertip blast),Renzokou Kikou Ha (machine gun-like energy), Gyariku Hou "Garlic Gun", Saishyuu Saigo no Waza "Ultimate Final Skill" (the attack he used when commiting suicide), Zenshin kara no Shyougeki Ha(arms outspread.. explosion), Big Bang Attack, Final Flash, (Bukujutsu, he can fly), Fusion, Ring Jyou no Energy Ball (death by dismemberment) Super Saiya-Jin Levels: -Super Saiya-jin -Super Saiya-jin Dai 2 Dankai "Ultimate Super Saiya-jin Stage 2"- -Super Saiya-jin 2 Note: I suppose Americanized DBZ has been out so much that I must turn a deaf eart towards the misspellings and errors concerning DBZicana. I will do my best to portray Vegita as he was in the JAPANESE version. To this extent.. I suggest you edit in an R rating, if anything, for Vegita's sake.. as he is quite.... vulgar. Also.. I probably wont want anyone portraying my character at all unless I grant them that ability, considering Vegita is fairly complex and nothing like the Toonami version.

lava lamp, How unfortunate to see another member descend into the abyss of his own pride... This is the rule you were missing, kiddo: -"· Verbal Abuse: Verbal abuse includes swearing and/or any inappropriate language directed toward either a member or a staff member. Any form of threat, insult or inappropriate behavior towards a member or staff member is viewed very seriously by OtakuBoards.com" Every post I see in the lounge is subjected to my judgment as a moderator of this forum. I saw your posts as unnecessarily debasing towards members like Maladjusted. As for his siting newsweek... well that's perfectly fine. You seem to be incapable of recognizing the difference between an interpretation of a media article and sentences like "The South Korean music industry is only 1/20th of the Japanese music industry. " are the same. Your opinion would not be contested if you hadn't descended into name calling. This is why I called your error, lamp? Anyway, lamp, I understand that you obviously put plenty of personal bearing on this issue considering the amount of flaming that has going on. Not only that, you judge my moderation on false pretenses and unsubstantiated assumptions. You cannot recognize the fact that I wasn?t displaying favoritism, merely using your post as an example to illustrate where the thread should avoid heading, your attitude caused you to misinterpret my post. Because of the possible amount of damage to this thread constitution I must make another administrative duty: [b]lava lamp, do not post on this thread again.[/b] I'm trying to be as nice as I can about this, and your actions have justified this decision. Next time you have a problem with the way I moderate, talk to James or talk to Me (if you are gutsy enough ;) ) I feel this thread has had far too much positive input, despite your previous posts, to merit a closing. Mark M, I appreciate the backup, but I would've found this sooner or later. To the rest, please continue posting

I think tragedy is more realistic than anything out there. Tragedy affords far more, primal emotions to be explored because of the inherent nature of the theme. Tragedy itself carries a theme that virtually everyone can associate and relate to, therefore, a message is far more powerful when conveyed through tragedy. If you think about it.. Tragedy is forever inevitable. What goes up must come down. As soon as we achieve a pinnacle of some sort, as soon as life becomes amazing, it has no where to go but down. I don?t mean the situations must reverse (pure happiness turning into absolute despair), but the effect is still traditionally tragic. I?m having a bad day today, I would say. Why? Probably because yesterday was great? suddenly the world seems a little gloomier, and people a bit more cynical. Perhaps my expectations are too high and I?m the cynic. Regardless.. the perspectives have changed, and now I find myself looking up at what could have been a good day, rather than sitting aloft quite satisfied with how my day has progressed. This is a very simple form of tragedy. I doubt it's a trend.. but less comedy movies have been out probably because of the sheer milking of the 90's huge chronicle of euphamisms and humor. The 90's trend of sarcastic humor had basically reached it's high tide amongst the general populace, progressing from the more slapstick Dumb-and-Dumber of the early 90's. This humor continues in movies today, but it will be a while before we find something else to be funny again. The same could be said for Action movies... we're sick of the "been there, done that" feeling. Tragedy can apply to far more flexible situations.

You've been here for a while, yet you post a "hello" thread.... ironic.

I would probably discourage regurgitating content from other sites on to ours. I suppose if they are mildly entertaining you can put them in the "literature" forum and credit their author. They really would not provide enough discussion for a lounge thread, so please don't post them here. We really value the abilities of our community and the individuals of such over other websites. Sharing information is always ok, but give it a hook to discussion first. There's your answer, bub. I would suggest PMing a moderator next time though ^_^.

This is off topic, brusque, and necessary. [QUOTE=lava lamp]Laugh out loud? Since you're on the stupid "South" Korea VS. Japan thing, I'd just like to say it's not hard to surpass all CD and tape sales in "South" Korea. The South Korean music industry is only 1/20th of the Japanese music industry. People who idolize entire nations are pathetic. You saying South Korea is neck-and-neck with Japan in most areas is the infallible evidence that you're one of those people. Open your eyes and read a book. Two entirely different countries on two entirely different economic and global levels.[/QUOTE] Enough bickering over this topic people. I personally have no idea who's ahead of whom in the Cell Phone industry. Lava Lamp, instead of throwing a random number (1/20th) into the argument as an excuse to flame someone, try supporting your argument with evidence, like maladjusted. Avoid pointless flaming. I assure you, he reads books... Unsubstantiated pifle will get this thread closed.

It picks/marks the result based on what number it is in counting and marks off each result until you are down to one per category. The remaining result is your final MASH. Now.. to enjoy this game the most, pick two good things and three (or 2) bad things per category. Otherwise.... nothing much to be said here.

I also see this issue is starting to travel in circles. I think the opinions of both sides have been represented to about their limit. I've seen this debate 3 times within the last few months. By all means search the others. The last two times ended with a liberal end-note. I guess I'll let boba's post end this one off. A good debate, interesting opinions. May there be no bad blood between the parties. ^_^ This has been milked for all it's worth. Thread closed. Edit: Chibi, I deleted your message, as it was redunat and driving the thread in circles, which is the reason I've closed it. Please feel free to forward your debate through PM.

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']There's been some talk about the moralityof allowing same sex couples to marry. I'll probably sound either stupid or redundant but how can allowing two people who are in love be considered imoral? Explain that. [/color][/quote] Well, you are being fairly redundant. What does love have to do with it in the first place? Lets say I loved my mother so much that I killed her.. I felt nothing but love for her and I killed her. Perhaps it?s possible, allow the point to sink in though. The action that?s taking place is immoral because of my common sense, biological logic, and spiritual morals. I don?t mind if homosexuals have a relationship, when someone bring it into a citizen-run government, one asks for my opinion and vote. [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet] As TN has been saying, this idea has nothing to do with religion and I agree with him on it. What it has to do is with allowing people the right to marriage-the ability to enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples. The right to see their partner in ICU and to adopt children. Basic human rights which are given to most couples. [/color][/QUOTE] As I?ve said before? if you are asking why this is immoral, religion is taken into perspective. Religion is important, it?s this Judeo/Christian philosophy from which I believe we derive our rights! How can you expect someone to vote on anything without thinking if it will benefit or detriment society?? How can you disregard religion at all? "Basic human rights" (it seems that term is used loosely, as now we have some god-given right to visit people in the ICU) can most commonly be secured quickly through power of attorney. As for adoption, well, that?s a whole other issue? [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']. Do you feel that one person's opposition to a state's ruling could help or hurt people in the long run? [/color][/quote] Who exactly would be the "people" that are helped/hurt? Elaborate a bit more, please. [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet]. I'm all for democracy, but I can't see how a country that denies a group of people the basic right of marriage can be considered a democracy. If there was a law baring people from different religions or different ethnic backgrounds from marrying people would be all over the place to take down that law. How is homosexual marriage any different? Even if you don't want to give them a right to marry, atleast give them a civil union-or even a right to common law marriage (if that's anywhere close to the same thing. IF I got that wrong let me know.) [/color][/QUOTE] Because you are changing the definition of marriage.. or opposing it?s current definition. Denying the right is a pretty scewed way of saying it. That?s like me trying to change the definition of "menopause" to include men! You are changing the dynamics of the word completely, in that sense. There?s your opposition, at a basic form. In this argument I see civil union as being debated here. Marriage refers to the religious act. In essence, asking for homosexual marriage destroys the concept completely, or, reverts it to nothing more than a "civil union". The state cannot oppose religion or ethnicity, so why would it bar marriage in that circumstance? [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet]. (Try to stay away from bringing up incest, that isn't the same thing at all) [/color][/QUOTE] Why? Because you cannot legitimately say it is wrong and support homosexuality? Sure they aren?t the same thing, but they are definitely analogous. [QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet]. As for marriage being a sacred thing. Throughout history it hasn't been very sacred at all. People were married off like property to secure land or dimplomatic ties. Besides that fact, many of the european monarchs had mistresses, only sleeping with their legal spouses to produce legitamate children. Infact, King James I of England as well as a few of the French kings were homosexuals. [/color][/QUOTE] ?. European royalty? You are opposing the sanctity of a present-day holy matrimony by citing medieval history?

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New][SIZE=2]. Personally, I hold the same view on the subject as my English teacher. In his words, (these could have been taken from somewhere else, but he said them in class) "The government has no business in the bedrooms of the country it governs." [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] The government isn?t deciding a thing about the "bedroom". Sodomy is legal. Sodomy with the same gender is legal. As for the argument about "if it doesn?t hurt another person, why is it wrong, etc" I believe Boba and I once again share the same sentiments. [QUOTE=Mitch][size=1][color=red] There was just a thread about this. I'll say what I've said before succintly, since I don't see any reason to belabor it: being gay means nothing. [/size][/color][/QUOTE] I?m sure the gay population would enjoy hearing this. As for it being wrong; that?s debatable. ;) [QUOTE=Mitch][size=1][color=red] It said all men are created equal. That's what the laws of this union state. So where is the deal? I don't see it, certainly. All men are created equal, and so same-sex marriage isn't wrong at all. All men (and women) should get the same. They should be treated equally; they should be allowed to do all the same thing.[/size][/color][/QUOTE] All men are created equal. By this formula, murderers are created equal. I?m not about to say a murderer is any less "human" than anyone else. I oppose murder. I?m exaggerating here, get the point and move on. Just because people are created equal in skin doesn?t mean the government should support equality [I]en actum[/I]. I don?t treat gay people differently than I do homosexual people, I just disagree with a single life choice. The "all men are created equal" argument was used in the Civil Rights movement, right? Why did Martin Luther King, Jr. declare all men are created equal? Because God says that people are created equally. What precedent, other than some religious text, do you have to proclaim that all men are created equal? [quote name='Shinken'] It's no better than what was done to try and illegalize the voting rights of slaves or women earlier in US history. As far as the Church's arguments against it... Don't get me started.[/quote] Ladies and gentlemen.. start your engines. By all means, give your opinions of the Church on this. What does voting have to do with this? The only reason we were denying these people of their rights was because of their skin color or gender, something that cannot be helped. [quote name='oshi']Hetero couples can get married and divorced on a whim. They can date for three months, decide that they're "meant for each other" and tie the knot. They can have three children that they don't want, and then they can decide that they "made a mistake" and get a divorce, despite the fact that they then have thrown three kids into an unstable environment, and effected their lives in an unchangable way. [/quote] Ah, you are against divorce! So am I. [QUOTE=oshi] Whereas a gay couple has to fight this hard, just to be able to gain the right to visit their loved one in a hospital? To share the same life insurance plan? What is wrong with this, now, hmm? Gays can barely adopt--even though there's no evidence that kids living with gay parents are negatively influenced. I don't think that marriage means anything right now, anyway. .[/QUOTE] Last time I checked with my lawyer, I could (through power of attorney) share property, material deeds, hospital visits, several forms of insurance (except for some forms of life insurance and health insurance), if I had a kid I could share him, etc. The list goes on. I sincerely doubt that homosexuals want to get married because of the "benefits" (cause everyone knows, that?s why your parents got married ;) ) Please don?t discredit the value of marriage. You?re almost slapping the people who have had successful marriages in the face with that comment. [QUOTE=oshi] I guess I'm pretty open-minded about this kind of thing. I read an article a while ago about a French couple. They were brother and sister. However, they were perfect for each other. They're both very happy, and they have a lovely, healthy child. As long as your actions are not hurting anyone--which rules out pedophilic "relationships" and incest abuse--you should not be forced into the same mold as everybody else. Everyone lives a different life, and everyone has different views. This shouldn't be a matter of religion--because everyone's take on that is different, too.[/QUOTE] You underestimate the importance of religion in some people?s lives. It forms much of the moral fabric with which they abide by. The fact you don?t really care about the brother and sister getting married illustrates my point. You have realized that if you can?t oppose gay marriage, you can?t honestly oppose any form of marriage , incestial or not. [quote name='SasukeUchiha']Oh i understand his perspective, he wants votes. Yes, there is an ammendment of the constitution, but has it really been carried out? Look at the Pledge of Allegiance or what you swear on when you testify in court. [/quote] When do you say "I believe in God?". What "God" are do you think the pledge of allegiance refers to? Swearing in court "so help you God" doesn?t suddenly mean you have to believe, respect, or even know anything about any religion at all? The Declaration says our fundamental lives are "God-given", unalienable. This document was written by DIESTS, they didn?t believe in God, but they recognized that somehow they needed a moral foundation. The idea of an omnipotent and unchanging truth (as truth wavers within a populous) gives us a means to our freedoms. [QUOTE=SasukeUchiha] That first statement does not make sense to me, I am reading it and it is sounding very insulting to me, but I am not goign to make an issue out of it because I am not positive what point you were exactly trying to make. If marriage is just some document that will end in divorce, what is the problem with letting everyone have a go at it. And I am not saying that they are not happy, I am saying that they deserve to show their HAPPYNESS. I do not know your sexual orientation, but if you were gay, transgender, ect. and fell in love with someone I am sure you would want to express that too. .[/QUOTE] I never said marriage is a document that ends in divorce. I was elaborating on the fact that you can base the same arguments for ideas like incest on the same principles homosexuality are based on. As Boba said before, this is the foundation of our social structure crumbling before our eyes. Marriage isn?t an expression of love, it?s a commitment. Gay people express happiness about their sexual orientation as much as you could expect from anyone. Just because something makes you happy, doesn?t make it right. [QUOTE=SasukeUchiha] As for your first statement, heterosexual couples also have sex in the anus. Its not just a Gay thing. Once again I think that is offensive, your views are fine, and I will not attack you for them because everyone has the right to have an opinion. ....And you cannot consciously choose to be homosexual, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, who in their right mind would choose to be a homosexual and have people look down on them and be excluded from many of the RIGHTS we should have as Americans. I definitly would not and yet here I am.[/QUOTE] I never said it was restricted to homosexual couples. But that?s the only means male homosexuals may have sexual relations. Females also have unconventional sex. It is as unnatural in a homosexual?s bed as it is in a heterosexual?s bed. You cannot choose who you love. Much less choose what "love" is. With such an esoteric meaning all leading back to some poorly defined concept, I?m not sure love even merits homosexual marriage. Who knows what love is? We cannot define love at all! So while you can?t choose the way you feel about someone, can you honestly say that you fall in love? From a scientific standpoint, love is a nice mixture of oxitosin, epinephrine, norepinephrine, dopamine, and a few other chemicals inspired by the desire to have sex. Usually this stimulation comes from a member of the same sex. However, every once in a while, these chemicals mix when we see a member of the same sex. Did our bodies make a mistake? Physiological evidence says yes; we are only human, after all. The conscious choice appears in whether or not we act upon the feelings of our heart. In terms of the government supporting a validation of an act that I consider unnatural or morally wrong; I must oppose such suggestion. Lastly, quit shouting the word "rights" as if they appear so unfounded. Why do you think we have "rights" in the first place? What exactly did you, or I do to deserve the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? [quote name='Transtic Nerve']Do any of you get tired of arguing the same nonsense over and over again. [/quote] Yes. [QUOTE=Transtic Nerve] Look, whether or not people agree with it or it's against religion or whatever BS you can pull from out your arse, it the meaning behind our country as a free nation.... the fact, I, as a gay man cannot gain the same rights as lets say... Boba, a straight man, can in marriage makes this not a free country... By denying certain people certain rights that other people have is not freedom. It goes against the whole meaning of America... ofcourse, since anyone who opposes gay marriage is so stuck up in religion and this sanctity of marriage BS, they don't see that. How many times must i tell you that [b]this isn't about religion[/b], this is about RIGHTS of the people. Please pull your head out of your arse and start saying anything else.[/QUOTE] My neighbor pays less of a tax bracket because he?s poor. My black friend got into the University of Michigan and I didn?t, because his race was the equivalent of an SAT. Equality? Fair? As far as I?m concerned, homosexual and heterosexual sex are opposites, how are they equal? You also must identify which you support. Marriage is a religious institution. Civil union is not. In order to demand gay marriage means you must demand a change in the customs and religious ceremony that is marriage (it came before the state ceremony, which is at it?s basic form a civil union). Nothing is being denied at all, Chris, you are asking for something that wasn?t offered in the first place (I?m highlighting on the root that perspectives are being spun, here). Homosexuals just want it to be CHANGED. You are claiming an unfounded right. How many times must you be told that religion and morals have as much validity as your arguments for the "rights" to gay marriage. Why do you believe you have that right? Well, compare those to the beliefs of those who oppose your opinion, and you will understand why people oppose it. Don?t forget how important religion is to people, it?s the reason people believe we have any rights to begin with. How on earth can we justify rights without some moral foundation? Morality is merely the ability to distinguish what you believe is right and wrong, not merely a right or a "wrong"(crime, etc). We are all forgetting that it can be peacefully opposed from a biological standpoint J (Although, I don?t think biology has much to do when validating a civil act).

Religious propaganda is everywhere, and will be everywhere. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, all want to share their faith. Perfessionally, it could have resulted in a tense situation. Sure, it offended people. Christianity and the ideas behind it are fairly exclusive if you think about it, and extremely hard to understand without understanding the relgion itself. He's exercising free speech. Thank you for pointing out Godelsenei's mistake, Boba. If he were "cursing people" then this pilot would be sinning- not Christian at all. It seems as though he was not. I think I'll change the direction of this thread a bit. How do you feel about Christians sharing their faith? What do you think about public displays of faith? Do you think free speech should be restricted in this sense? I would be interested in your thoughts.