Kent

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Heaven's Cloud [/i] [B][color=indigo]Although I agree with nearly everything you said, I would like to point out that the director of the school said that [b]anyone[/b] can be placed on the waiting list for the school, but gay/lesbian/bi/transexual children are given priority. I tdoesn't make it right, but that is what is going on. [/color] [/B][/QUOTE] This very point is exactly why the concept of an "all gay school" is un-constitutional. Allowing the school to wiegh the value of any two students based on the students sexual prefference is subjective and not academic at any level. Providing an institute of minds and perspectives is all important in a college enviroment, but intellectual capabilities and achievments should take presidence over behavioural/lifestyle diversity. Lots of people must have replied again since I began this, so there is a good chance I will be back. Till then... :whoops: edit: I noticed the post tn and crimson. :o

I just want to remind everyone that this school's formation is based on the gay population with drawing voluntarily from other schools. Not being forced out of "normal" schools. I also want to point out something about a point tn mentioned... What you were reffering to with the gov. helping families pay for private school is called "school vouchers." Why you ask did this not go through... Well, if you watch H&C half as much as I do, you would have seen the little weasel, representitive from harlem, Charles Rangel. (D) Although he represents some of the poorest people in the nation, with some of the worst schools in the nation, he adimatly opposed giving people the OPTION to take gov. assistance (vouchers) to send their child to a private school. I personally think of this as another example of not practicing what you preach, as well as, a representitive playing it safe with the partisanship of the teacher's unions. (teacher's unions in America are openly alligned with the political left) So I guess that addresses the idea of getting gov money for assistance in paying for private school. However, the main point of this is the constitunality (sp?) of only allowing gay students to enroll in a "public" school. It is obviously wrong, but I just wanted to see where you guys all fell on this. (sorta a test for consistancy on political issues, along with some good old fashion political debating.) In the end, two things must be remembered about this... One, this is a voluntary with draw from other schools. Two, this "gay school" is only availible to students who are openly gay. (in the words of linda richmond) Discuss amongst yourselves...

Just as importantly, it is neccesary to face a population if acceptance is the end goal. Running off and starting your own school is not how you fit in and get along or establish yourself as an equal.

What about the geeks that feel uncomfortable everyday at their own school, but dont have the grades to go to any other school. (since grades are what all other schools are required to judge a student by.) In response to trans nerve... Good job. This is not an acceptable policy for a public school and you acknowledged that. This is what I call consistancy.

I actually was already very well aware of that ideology, but it, unfortunatly, is not at all a valid reason. For this same reason, I should be allowed to recieve public tax dollars to fund and operate my own school for "fat" people only. They recieve the same sorts of tourment and discrimination, but would never be allowed to act on the same idea. (discriminatory acceptance policy's for a public school)

It has nothing to do with loving one another. This is about the fact that a non-academic acceptance policy for enrollment at this school is flat out discriminatory. Look at an all guys college like the military institute. At the cost of allowing everyone no matter what, they were forced to accept females into the school. (all due to the fact that the school recieved federal funds.) This policy is biased and wrong. If you wish to have your own school for gays only, then you must do it on your own and not with public funds. (thats why its not ok to have a catholic public school) This is the perfect example of a double standard...

Have you seen this... Dont have much time so this will be short. NewYork city, public school, only allows gay students. Its being created and instituted as of sometime within the last _____, and has been brought to the media's attention (or atleast to me) as of today. I dont know how long they have been setting this up or anything besides the 3 things above- nyc, public school, gays only. I say its discriminatory and unconstitutional to only allow students of a specific sexual preferrence into a public school that recieves state or federal money. Please, talk amongst yourselves until I return. :D

I think of a jack nicholson qoute... When posed with the question of how he figures out what the way women think... "I think of a man and I take away all reason and accountability." I person think its funny. However, if I was to really think about how a woman thinks, I would say just about the same as men. Only with a few differences. (like how to pick a mate/companion)

I hate over paid athletes. I really am not a fan of the more popular sports... football, baseball, basketball, etc. However, I do not believe that kobe raped this un-named woman. I believe the woman got with him as any other woman would when trying to seduce a man in kobe's shoes and then she turned on him big time. Flat out... I dont buy it. This woman is a liar in my eyes and must prove through some means that the sexual interaction between her and kobe was not assualt. I dont not believe that kobe should be burdened with proving he did not rape her. (its almost like reporting a theft... you must prove something was stolen before anything can be done.) Why should we take her word for it in this situation over his. This is he said, she said. I believe him... (frankly, kobe bryant doesnt need to rape anyone, regardless of having a wife, he is as famus as they come and just as rich too... Ive got a feeling he doesnt have trouble with the ladies... well, until now.) Anyway, so yeah, I think he is not guilty of sexual assualt... adultury on the other hand... *throws the book at kobe*

You know what I wish... I wish, for starters, that they would make a street fighter/capcom vs snk/ capcom vs marvel, control style, cell shaded fighter game. 3d and 2d... both styles. I also wish I could get a really customizable gundam action game. fed vs zeon was good, but you could never come close to the game customization of an armored core game. So an armored core/ gundam game would be awesome. I guess thats it for now, but I'm gonna have to look into some of the other concepts I think about... creativity rules!

Yeah, you know, this is actually taking shape to me because we are starting to distinguish between best in a tech sense and fav. as a charactor. I guess my point was that a discussion that ends up being a simple question- who is the best? Is a question with one answer, therefore has no room for discussion in a deeper sense than 2 or three sentences. Any way... I also thought of another cool gunfighter... Iria, she was a cool chic charactor in maybe a couple movies. Sci-fi used to show her. She was pretty mean and could fight on some next level ****. I also thought of the people depicted in less common flicks like jinro. All of these people are depicted in different levels of "reality." I would love to see an animatrix fan move into this discussion. I bet bullet dodging and super human speed is nothing in that world. So I ask, what is your favorite depiction of a gunfighter?

Well, I gotta disagree, because when you get into an argument about the details of who is a better gunman, your gonna run into problems with fanboys (like me:D ) who care about little things like the fact that vash is not a human that can be sloppy enough to get shot by some average fool. (yet live only due to his super-human abilities) Then you have the idea of "best" being a rating of the gunmans overall ability to act effectivly during a gunfight. With that sort of thing in mind, you have vash, who lives through gunshots by average chumps, coming out as "the best" because he would be the survivor of a death match. But when you judge it like that, you end up with who would win and those topics are even worse for the fanboys than topics like this. Thats why I say give your fav. explain why he/she is so great, and then talk about whatever you want. gotta run. -------------- edit: Ok, I'm back. Just wanted to elaborate on what I was saying. Basically I believe asking for who is better on a technical sense is silly. I believe asking for reasonable, persausive, arguments about why you like a certain person is the best way to take a thread like this. In combo with inability to determine a scientific best, thats the only way to go.

Everything you say makes sense, your writing is just fine and your opinions are well represented. IMO. I gotta say though, based on my time living with the phish lot, dead-head, commun livin, veggie lovin', hipsters, we reffer to as hippies... if you were to seperate "hippies" into 2 groups as you did, atleast 50% of the "cool" hippies would be the "political hippies." You gotta remember that the majority of those kids we think of as the woodstock hippies were college students dodging out on a war, while being educated in a world of intellectual elitism. (which can often give life to extreme leftist ideologies such as communism) That sounds to me like a great situation for everything you mentioned... yuppies, druggies, and loud mouth idealist. All of that aside... This is about achieving human rights, and almost as importantly (while being the exact subject of this thread) recognizing the achievment of human rights by any party. That is what this is all about. Hence, the question... Is it wrong to ignore the advances made in the last 2 years, because you do not wish to recognize the accomplishments of those who are your political opposition? As well as... Should a person oppose action that could result in the advancments of human rights, as to further their own political agenda? As well as the question... (sorry :D ) Is it hypocritical for person(A) to oppose person(B) on a political scale even when person(B) has achieved great steps towards the end goal that person(B) holds so dear? (that goal being equal human rights for all) Those questions are what I ask in this thread. (all refferences to "you" in questions or examples are soley for example purposes. No individual at the otakuboards is intended to be the target of such questioning.) Gotta love the disclaimer :laugh:

Another topic like this came up about the best swordsman... I posted in it, just as I am this topic, and just as before, I do not plan on naming a "best fighter." Instead, I would like to remind you guys that there are far too many gun fighters to just keep your sights on vash, gene, and spike. I mean, dont you guys remember all of the great gun play from movies like ghost in the shell or the moves from that chick in the movie kite? I cant personally think of that many gun fighters at the moment, but, there IS a point to my post. That point is that arguing over who is the best is just not cool... and probably against the rules. However, I would love to see you guys talk about your favorite gunman and what makes them so great. Personally, I like wolfwood because he was a bada$$ and he was willing to do what it takes to win the fight. I also loved the major from ghost in the shell. (kusanagi I think was her name) She had that awesome camaflauge and some really mean hand to hand moves to go with it. Plus her guns were super bad as well as realistic. Also, Im not sure since I haven't seen it, but I bet the animatrix has some really awesome gunplay and some really bad dudes doing the fighting. I dont know... but remember fellas ! Its not about who is best, just who is your fav.

Well.... :D I appreciate the well thought out post on the behalf of some and all. I want to address a couple of things. First is the idea of economic gain being the sole reason for the war... lol, I love it. As I said before to another person in this thread... cloricus, please continue using this reasoning for the length of your political life. (opinions like that and the other one expressed about oil, make life so much easier for me... not having to argue with legitimate, quality, truthful and informed opinions makes for an easy debate on the side of reason.) A big part of one post in the above was based on the innocent workers imprisoned in military prison camps... man, I never realized those guys were such sweeties. I better get active about this one... maybe some time you could post some pictures from your vacation to camp x-ray? I figure you must have gone there and interviewed the innocent people who have been so wrongly imprisoned. You probably also took advntage of your trip there by checking out what the fate of all the people to go there have been, as I have not heard a thing about it with the exception of the occassional word on how many were released after questioning... But for the rest who have spent the entire time there wrongfully... Man, you just gotta feel horrible about that. --- the idea of first strike --- Well I guess cloricus cleared this up, but I thought I would take the time to remind of of some of the other first strikes that never managed to set that dangerous precedent cloricus has only witnessed now. We could start in germany... nazi aggression into poland. Then japanese aggression into china. Currently happening in the world - russian aggression into chechnia (sp?) Communist aggressions into south vietnam... "bandit raids" by communist into south korea... Chinese aggressions into tibet... That should be enough for the moment. But since Ive gotten so off track... Let me remind us all, THIS IS NOT ABOUT IRAQ. This is about one thing. People claiming to be humanitarians, yet ignoring the progression of human rights that has occured over the last 2 years, all so they do not have to recognize the good will efforts of their own political enemies. Just as with the people I started this thread to discuss, many in this thread have flat out ignored the truth about first world compassion at the hands of "conservative" governments. Instead of addressing this "progression in human rights," some would rather address issues that are totally unrelated. (all to avoid admiting the great deeds done by nations such as Japan, Austraillia, Britian, Pakistan and America.) *just to name a few supporters of the "anti-terrorist movement"* So lets get this straight... This topic is about the population of people (including the media) who have ignored the advances in human rights, yet claim to be the champions of those idealistic views for a better world through the spread of equal rights. Note: I consider hippie to be an insulting term... if your a hippie, come here and meet the hippie killer. (look in sig :D )

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Change [/i] [B]Heh, I really don't wanna get into this, we already got about 50 pages last time arround ^_~ So I will say that I am a firm beliver in human rights...eventualy...Everything takes time, and if you don't want to go and force poeple to change their treatment of others, you just have to wait for them to fix it (an unlikely propositions, but the cheepest in our blood and greenback, money is the clarion call after all). [/B][/QUOTE] Well... I respect your frank and honest withdraw from a debate such as this. I also want to remind you... THIS IS NOT ABOUT IRAQ This is about human rights progression over the last 1 or 2 years and the way this progression has been totally ignored by those who claim to be the champions of human rights... all to spite their own political opposition. I also want to mention that money should not be of concern to a man who so deeply believes in the rights of his fellow man. Your right about one thing... We can not change a persons beliefs. However, do you need to change the persons beliefs, or just (in this case) the conditions of human rights? I gotta ask though, why no reply to my jason blair comment? I imagine you read the paper quite often. (especially with how you spotted my ignorance to the world of print journalism) It would only be natural that you have something to say about that. :therock: Oh well, I guess thats how it goes sometimes, right?

LOL. I will take that as a simple suggestion of possible scenerios and not a personal insult. But just as all of you have probably noticed... I am poorly spoken and far below average in intelligence. My political views are obviously mis-informed and out of date. So I guess its ok for you to assume I dont read news papers or anything. Then again, maybe theres a reason for that... :cough, cough, jason blair: Of course, everything above and anything about oil has nothing to do with the original question and subject of the thread... The "over-looking" of the human right progress that has occured due to the actions of an imperialist, totalitarian government.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Change [/i] [B] we really did just go there for the oil, and not the lovely people and cousien...[/B][/QUOTE] I just hope you continue saying that for the rest of your political life. :laugh: :laugh:

On the contrary, someone does win... The man who reaps the benefits of humanitarian progress always wins. Whether the hippie gets to eat a piece of that cake too is of no importance... They already had theirs and it allowed them to voice the non violent opinion they hold.

First off, I spelled it wrong with my initial attempts to use the word... that error has been corrected. Implement- An instrament, tool, or utensil for accomplishing work. Implementation. I believe I used the term properly, although I could be wrong... :lol:

Well, it has been a while since I posted anything like this... Along with that span of time, I have cut my posting in half... It's time for a political debate Kent style... I want to specifically discuss the over-looked human rights progress that has occured over the last year due to the burden of protection and support for third world countries by the first world countries most of us come from. Actually, that statment is a bit off. I should have said that the spread of human rights is due to one thing. The greatest violators of human rights decided to "take a fight to us" and the great democracies of the world, ending in changes of regimes and changes in ideologies that could only be brought by democracy. Well, actually :D I messed up again... I wanted to bring up the people who stand up for human rights when asked, yet oppose the very spread of those rights to spite the efforts of those who do not share their own political views. Such is the case with the opposition to a conflict in Iraq, as well as the opposition to the defense of South Vietnam. (damn hippies oppossing American efforts to stop atrocities at the hands of aggressive communist actavist. i.e. the khamer rouge) To state a single question for the furthering of any possible discussion in this thread... Should an individual's political pride out wiegh his/her support for the implementation of the ideals he/she allegedly holds ? I say no. I believe those who hold supportive views for human rights, yet have oppossed international conflicts through out history, have proven themselves to be more arrogant than benevolent. (I also believe these actions prove these people to be blind to the progress of human rights, none the less, women's rights) Conflict is always horrible, but the results of any conflicts are up to us to decide.:naughty:

Yes, I do believe there are more episodes after the kyoto arc. How many? I dont really know for sure, but I have a great link to try and post... well actually, forget the link, just try and find your way to the "anime hq" then to the summaries. [url]www.anime-hq.com[/url] It is great and has a really good, concise ep summary for the entire series... I think its 95 eps in all... Good luck.

I actually came back here because of seeing that episode. I was just happy to see cn continue with the kyoto stuff and not go back to reruns as they do all to often. However, I dont think I will get to see many of the coming eps... I've got what I like to call a job. A crappy one. So saturday night at about 8 or 9 Im always at work... summer jobs always suck like that.

Im in La too. welcome to the boards. Yes, uubu is the reincarnation of kid buu. Yes, the ep you reffer to is the last dbz episode. Sorry, but I dont know my dbgt. I dont think it starts in the little village though... However, I know it starts years later on down the road.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Change [/i] [B]No, it really is a cool gun. I've seen th history channel special on it. If you get a genuine AK produced in Russian, it is better than a M-16. [/B][/QUOTE] It would still be wise to account for the differences in specific subjects of the test. M16a1 vs ak47 M16a2 vs ak47 M16a2 vs ak74 Any of these weapons are different in important ways. The ar-15 is the base of the m16. Designed by a fella with the last name "Stoner," the stoner design is used in more weapons than I could ever name. Armalites would be a good place to look for an honest new age stoner design. If you want to look at the nicest m16 design, service rifle, (still stoner, produced by colt) look at the colt M4 carbine. Each rifle is different, but personally, having grown up as a post cold war american, I see the ak47 as a product of the soviet union and a symbol of their nationalism. I respect the weapon, but will not write the m16 off in a simple statment... Not picking on you :D just ranting like a fool. And thanks taylor.:blush: