Transtic Nerve

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth [/i] [B]but don't agree that a fundamental "no religion in the government" policy exists.[/quote][/b] Well obviously it doesn't exist, Bush continues to use his religion every day in his policy for this country. [quote][b]If you don't have a paper like the constitution created for you, how do you base your fundamentals?[/quote][/b] Fundamentals on what? I have fundamentals on this country based ont he platform it was created upon and which it still stands. If this was an issue of pure opinion I'd say to hell with the stupid statue, I don't believe in it anyway. I wouldn't think think twice about saying it should be removed just because I don't like it. But I don't say what I say because of that, i say it because i believe this country has a spereration of church and state clause, IMPLIED, in our consitution. If I had to take this to the supreme court and have them decide, I would, and I'd hope they'd agree and everything would be settled. But I can't so I won't know. Anyway, I base my own fundamentals off of how I was raised and my own beliefs and morals. I'm sure if I was born somewhere that wasn't the US or by people who werent like my parents, they'd be different. But obviously my environment has effected my way of life, and I honestly can't tell you what I would be thinking fundamentally without living here or knowing about America, cause thats not how I've lived. I guess I'd know when I move out of this country and live in another one, but I haven't yet so I can't tell you. [quote][b]How do you justify saying everyone has unailiable rights?[/quote][/b] Our constitution says so. The Fist Amendment says so. People have the right given to them by our government in this "free" country. However those rights are never fully envoked. No one is free. I'm certainly not free. Hell I can't even legally get married, I'm consistantly discriminated again, and I'm shuned upon by my own president... Thats not freedom (esspecially ironic since the guy leading the country of the free is the one taken all my freedoms away) But I still have those rights given to me by the Bill of Rights, hence it's name, and I intend to envoke those rights to the furthest potential possible. The government consistantly takes away our freedoms and we consistantly stand back and let them and I refuse to do that. I refuse to stop speaking out against this, I refuse to give up my right to privacy, and I refuse to do alot of things for this country, cause it's my right to. And I won't let that right be taken away from me, like others so easily do. [quote][b]How would you re-write the consitution?[/b][/quote] Good question. First and formost it would say in lettering in the first admendment Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There shall be no existance of any religion within state property, policy making, and decisions based thereon, thus creating a speration between church and state.......(the rest here)" (this would obviously include the removal of any religious articles or peices in state property. Praying ins chool would automatically be disallowed. God, Yaweh, Allah, and any likes there of will no longer, or not at all, be mentioned in or on anything issues or anything representing the United States of America. I'm sure we can all come up with something a little btter than "In God we Trust" on our pennies. I mean come on lol.) Amendment II: I would remove the part that says "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" Amendment XXVIII: The Electoral College shall be abolished. Presidency/Vice Presidency will be determined by a populus vote. Amendment XXIX: Supreme Court Justices shall serve a first term of no more than ten years. They may be appointed to a second term of no more than five years if the president at the time of the first terms ending chooses to do so. Amendment XXX: Freedom and Equality to all peoples of American citizenship. Regardless of gender, age, race, handicap, sexual orientation, religion, and so forth. These peoples will have the right to envolve themselves, personally (keyword), with whatever they so choose to do, as long as it does not infringe on the life or the rights of their fellow Americans or the life of any such living animal. No persons or group thereof shall be treated with anymore freedoms or oppportunitys of equality than the other. (ie: Gay marriage, adoption, no discrimnation in the public workplace, etc) I would obviously have some professional word these a little better. [quote][b]What would rationalize your opinion over another persons?[/quote][/b] Freedom of thought. I despise people who use things to explain their own thoughts (even though I'm quite aware I did such thing in this very own thread, but it was obviously part of the explaination needed, although I've given my true opinion of what I'd do above) I don't like it when people base their thoughts off of what '"God says"... "God said this" "Jesus said that"... i don't give a f**k. I wanna know what YOU say. I esspecially love the argument "being Gay is unnatural cause God created Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve"... How am I supposed to take that argument seriously when all you are doing is a) making a joke (the name Steve wasn't even around back then) and b) basing your whole argument off of a book lol. I want YOUR reasons, not the bible's reasons. Not God's reasons. You're not God. You think differently than God, whether you think so or not. If I wanted God's answer I'd ask that tall bastard myself. If people can give me a true answer, based on what they think, I will respect that person so much more. thats why I highly respect Gokents. I don't agree with a damn thing the guy says, but dammit, he uses facts and his own opinions, not some other guy's opinion that he liked lol and that makes me respect him in such a higher degree than anyone else. When I talk to him or debate with him, I do it in such a manner where I give him the respect he deserves yet stillt ry to prove him wrong. I am guessing this is what you meant by your question. if not, please elaborate on the use of "rationalize" in this specific context. [quote][b]What greater absolute truth do you look towards?[/B][/QUOTE] I am not sure I understand exactly what you mean by this. What type of answer are you looking for? The absolute truth of God? Of this country? of the world? It's people? All of it and then some?

I think it should be taught on the basis of lietrary science and Darwin as an author and a philosopher.... but I don't think they should teach the Evolutionary theory (man evolving from ape) as something factual, afer all it's a theory, just as they shouldn't teach the creation theory as something factual either. It's a good peice of literature. Then again so is the bible, the quaran, and the torah. They should teach all those too, but they don't. If they want to teach specifics on Darwin other than "he wrote On the Origin of Species which talks about evolution in such and such year" they should have a specific class. Maybe even having a creation theory class. Hell you could fit all that material in one semesters worth of class. lots of discussion to. Not to mention tons upon tons of other theories on creation they could use. I'm personally a fan of the bubble theory lol. Let me also reiterate the use of the term "Evolutionary Theory." When I say it I'm specifically refering to the "man from ape" theory, which hasnot been proven obviously... for all sorts of evolution HAS been proven factual, so there's no debate on that. Be careful in your use of the terms. If a specific biology teacher wished to teach it [The Evolutionary Theory], I think they should make it very clear that it is a theory. And I think they should also go into the several other creation theories around. Including the biblical explanation, thats what my Bio teacher did in college.

I've been meanign to buy the Stinkman or whatever his name is, shirt. I've been going here for about a year now or so. Seen just about everything on the site. HOLY CRAP!

I feel no need to comment any further. I have said what I need to say and thats how I see. The constitution is not law, it's a platform of rights given to us. The right NOT to be forced to have a religion, by placing a statue of Christian background in a state building, I feel that the state is choosing a religion for itself, and as a person under the state, I feel it being choosen for me. If there's no seperation of church and state, then I hope this country becomes a Christian theocracy, then I hope you all die from some holy war you have with muslims. This is absolutely ridiculous. This whole thread brings shame to what America should stand for. If I wanted to see a god damn statue of the f-ing ten commandments, I'd go to a god damn church, not a f-ing court house. I hope that makes my point clear enough to understand without being torn apart by people who don't believe in the fundamentals of their very own country!

50 cent only won because he put out his album this year and 2 major singles, one of which is insanely popular (In Da Club)... plus he's new. Eminem is old, everyone knows who Eminem is, he's already won awards, and no one really cares about old talent, they want something new, and 50 is "new." At least to the mainstream rap world he is. I personally don't like either of em. They're overplayed, boring, and quite frankly I don't care if he was shot 9 times.

Ugh, SPAM. Please think of something more intelligent to talk about in this forum. What a boring waste of space it is to just yap aimlessly about crappy bands.

There isn't an argument whether it offends anyone or not. The only argument here is if it defys the first admendment, which it does. Therefor, it should be taken down regardless if it offends any one or not. The deabte whether or not this country was founded on Christian ideals is irrelevant. What does the constitution say? I quoted it. I quoted the man who helped write much of it. Both saying that there is a seperation of church and state. This statue, of Christian origin and representing Christian beliefs, was placed in a state house. This is clearly a violation of the constitution. Any other argument or opinion is irrelevant, you're all looking at it fom the wrong way. Bush could go "I'm taking away your right to free speech and freedom of assembly. IE: You can't protest against the war."... well hell, thats not harming anyone, so should Bush be allowed to do it? Ofcourse not. Look at it from the view of the constitution and what America's basis is on, not from your opinons on whether or not it offended anyone. Hell it offends me to be in there, so now it offends someone, so it should be removed. Happy now?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by maladjusted [/i] [B][size=1] No...no, it isn't. It's a very [i]bad[/i] place to teach religion.[/size] [/B][/QUOTE] Actually, school is the perfect place to TEACH religionS, with an S. It's the perfect place to learn about religionS. It's the perfect place to get insight on religionS. Going to church is not learning a religion, thats following a religion. If you want to learn a religion, you have to be taught by an outside person. I was taught in school by an atheist. She by far my favourite teacher ever. She taught us not only about Christianity, but Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and several others even. She didn't have a stand on one specific issue thus she could equally talk and share opinions on each of the religions. School is a great place to LEARN about religions, not to follow them. I see what you were thinking though. Drix, I honestly don't read Socrates... he's too hard for me to understand in everything he does so I tend to ignore him or read Plato or someone who takes his ideals and makes them so much simpler. Even though I did understand what you said, I still didn't see how it incorporated into the argument of seperation of church and state. Which is why I didn't respond. It seems more talking about the actions of people and what they do on a free mind then what is written in law and what people do. My only true point is below which pertains to this topic, anything else is opinion. Article 5, Admendment 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America states: [i]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibbiting the free exercise thereof.......[/i] As Thomas Jefferson stated [i]"..I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting establisment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of seperation between church and state."[/i] There is a wall between church, any church, and the state, our government. That wall should not be breached. By placing a statue of the ten commandments in a state house, that wall is being breached. For now the government is respecting a certain religion. And thus, by constitutional law, this cannot be. This is my point. My point is not that it's wrong for Bush or this judge to believe in God.... my point is that talking about, reflecting upon, or putting statues in place that represent a certain religion is giving that religion respect in our government, and by doing so, that breaks our our constitutional laws.

Madonna was on it.... I think thats pretty much all that matters... oh yeah, those cute boys from Good Charlotte and AFI were there. I like AFI, Piro you should teach me more about them. That stupid 50 cent won crap... uhh Duran Duran! Woot, they were highlight... Lifetime Achievement award I think? I don't think Avril had any idea what the hell she was doing up there.

I'm going to end up picking apart most of your post, so bear with me here. No offense meant, just trying to proove my point ultimately. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Drix D'Zanth [/i] [B]Alright. I think you make fairly valid points, but I disagree. [/b][/quote] How can you disagree? It's in the constitution. There's no agree or disagree, there is facts and what is being done. Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, religion is NOT supposed to be incorporated in government, Bush is doing that. Those are the facts. There's no disagreeing over that. [quote][b]By asking the president to no longer use his faith in the workplace is violating his personal rights and his freedom to religion. [/b][/quote] Again I refer to the fact that religion is of PERSONAL choice. PERSONAL is not work related. I don't go into work complaining about how crappy my gay life is. I go to work and I work. Work life is different from personal life, religion is personal, thus it needs to stay out of the workplace. I'm not violating anything. He can still believe whatever crap he wants to believe, he can still believe it at work. He just shouldn't use it when making work decisions. [b][quote]He ABSOLUTELY has the right to use Christianity in anything he does as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, which it is not.[/quote][/b] His beliefs ARE infringing upon other's rights. He continues to use them for making dicisions. He continues to use them in public speeches. He continues to use them as a representation of this nation. He takes in no consideration to those who may not believe in God or who believe in other Gods. [quote][b]His crusade against terrorism isn't a religious one.[/quote][/b] Thats an oxy-moron. You can't have a non-religious crusade. Regardless, I never said his war on terrorism was a religious one. The war on Iraq was for oil, the outsting of Saddam was just our official reason for it. The war on Afganistan was to find a guy whom we never did. We just got rid of the Taliban as a side project. [quote][b]I've yet to see one of his goals or projects proprieted directly from his religion. [/quote][/b] Here's one: He's blantantly against gay marriages because he is trying to define marriage as a religious ceremony specifically meant for a man and a woman. Which is based off of his Christian faith. He doesn't believe in gay adoption cause his belief in Christianity tells him a family is a man and a woman. He's an adament Christian who places his adament Christian beliefs in all of his work. [quote][b]You are asking him to give up his first amendment, therefor I consider your argument mute.[/quote][/b] No, I'm asking him to do as the constitution says and seperate church from state. He is not doing that. Therefor he is preforming acts which are unconstitutional. I'm only asking him to be constitutional, he's not giving up his freedom of religion. He can still have it, he just can't use it when doing governmental thing, as so stated in the constitution. My argument is not mute, you just haven't read the constitution. [quote][b]The right to life is a Christian founded one[/quote][/b] The right to life was around LONG before Jesus was ever born. Ever heard of the Greeks or the Romans? Both societies who practiced the right to life within it's own people. (obviously, as with today, this doesn't incorporate wars or enemies) Regardless, if any group amung the peoples of today has taken more life in this world, it's most certainly the three major monothiestic religions. The belief in God has caused more people to die than the plague. I advise you to read my most recent MyOtaku entry as a fine example. Other examples would obviously be the Crusades. [quote][b]Our government was founded upon an absolute truth, fundamentally the judeo-christian philosophy, where life is sovereign because GOD says it is. I hope you thank your founding fathers for believing this, for if we placed our rights under the relative ideas of the common populace, we may not be a free country. [/quote][/b] Yes I thank my founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson for making sure that the seperation of church and state exists in this country (see quotes below). This country is not a theocracy. lol, stop pretending it is. Thomas Jefferson, a man who believed in God, the man who gave you freedom, was especially adoment in the ideal of seperation of church and state, why aren't you? [quote][b]Hitler was a perfect example of relative truth in action. Without referring to some higher power, how do you justify his killing of nearly all the european Jews? You can't. Why? It all refers back to the Socrates argument.[/quote][/b] This has what to do with the seperation of church and state, which is what this whole topic is about? You all seem to think Freedom of Speech is total freedom in speech. It's not. You have to read between the lines. There are limits to freedom, most of us figured that out when the government enacted the Patriot Act. We don't have complete freedom of speech, the lines are drawn and there's a big one in the ideal of seperation of church and state. Which basically means your freedom of speech ends when you start bringing the church into our government. Sorry. UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Thats the way it is. Be good Americans and just accept the fact religion has no place in our government. No matter how bad you want it. If you want a theocracy, travel back a few hundred years or move to the middle east. Till then I leave you with quotes: [i]"..I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting establisment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of seperation between church and state."[/i] - Thomas Jefferson [i]"I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation for the political concerns of the government."[/i] - Andrew Jackson [i]"We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of the state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn't stop now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this democratic republic."[/i] - former Senator Barry Goldwater

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i] [B]That's where you're mistaken, Chris. Any Christian's first obligation is to God. If he turns from that, he is better off never having become a Christian. You also said something once, in another topic, about it was no one's business to preach-you're wrong there too, lol. Christians are [i]required[/i] to preach the Good News to the nations. You can argue however you want, but being the faith-blinded idiotic fool that I am, who would you have me listen to: You, or God Almighty?[/B][/QUOTE] I don't say that it's not his job as a Christian to not preach, I'm saying, as President, it is your duty, your perogative, your JOB to be a servant to the people. Thats the job of a president in democracy and in our country. As I said before, religion is a personal thing. Not everyone believes what you believe, thus it is personal. And personal things do not belong in the job place, which is EXACTLY why we have speration of church and state in this country. As President he has the OBLIGATION as a servant of this country and of it's people to disregard any personal beliefs to do the duty set before him. For if he continues to use his religion convictions as a basis for his decissions, he defys the meaning of this country, of democracy, and of all the people he is supposed to serve. It's unconstitutional and un-American. Again, exactly why this statue needs to be removed. Look, believe what you want, I'm not saying that you shouldn't believe. But if you choose a job, like the presidency, you need to know that your beliefs have no place in it. He decided that when he ran for President, he should have understood that, yet still... he continues to use Christianity in everything he does work related and THAT is wrong. And if you choose a job for the government of this country you must KNOW that we have speration of church and state and that as a worker of this country you have to respect that and confide to that. There's NO other way. Those are the rules.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i] [B] As for Bush's bringing Christianity into his administration, that I support. As long a he keeps praying, I'll keep saying 'Rock on'. The best leaders are servants[/B][/QUOTE] He should be serving the people of the United States, not God, as president of this country. It's not in his job description. He needs not to do it. It is not in our founding right to bring religion into any governmental activities. It says so in the constitution, which is what this country is based on, and to not follow it is to be not American. As for the argument this country was founded on Judeo-Christian ways. Yes in a sense, because that was pretty much the only two religions prominant in this world. It wasn't founded on Muslim ideals or it'd be more like the middle east. It was founded on what i consider COMMON SENSE. Every government in this world has laws against killing, against crime, against many of what America has laws and values for. But alot of those other countries aren't Judeo-Christian countries.... Japan certaily isn't yet they have many of the same laws America has... it's common sense, it has nothing to do with religion. And religion has no part in government. We are not a theocracy. If you want a theocracy, go somewhere else. This is exactly why this statue should be and will be removed. It's ridiculous how the people continue to ignore the constitution. What a great place.

The Wolf.... even though it's a real creature, his mytholical ideals are there.... he's typically the trickster (Little Red Riding Hood, Three Pigs, etc) and he's clever and witty. However he lacks common sense and strength. He's usually stronger than normal, but not strong enough. I liek the trickster quality. He always gets all the sex too. Read the original Little Red Riding Hood, LRRH is the prostitude, the wolf is his client. ANd the Wolf wins that one, he actually kills her grandmother, feeds her to LRRH, and then eats LRRH (a sexual connotation, he probably raped her first lol, suchs a lovely story). In the Brother's Grim version, that stupid woodsman comes in and saves LRRH and her grandmother by pulling them out of the wolfs stomach after he kills the wolf. Krishna is a particular favourite of mine, he got all the girls lol. Ofcourse thats not my place, but yeah, it's just funny. Also, tricksters are more likely to include women and men in their roles, where other mythological people are only one sex, ie: God, or the main God, Noah's character (Utnapishtim for Mesopatania), and several others. You'd be surprised what Mythology holds. Not just ccreatures, but people... and "types" of people.... oh yeah... I also like the centaurs.

The whole idea is the whole ideal behind it... like I have in my sig... Religion has no place in our government, and the court system is our government, thus, no sole religion should have any show in it. Therefor, it should, needs to be, and will be removed. By keeping it there, it is showing SOME corrospondance between Christianity or Judaism and the government, which under our constitution CANNOT exist. Religion in the United States is defined as a personal cause... Not something that needs to be taken in by the public majority via the government. Government doesn't need to have any part of religion, no matter what denomination whoever may be. It's their personal business, not their job. Under the Bush administration, this country has been becoming more and more a Christian state. And under the Bush administration has this country finally looked at itself as true as it should be. We banned sodemy laws, we had the whole "One Nation Under God" debate, and now this. Bush continues to use Christianity in backing his stand on issues in America, and this simply cannot go. The only reason he gets away with it is cause some Muslims ran 2 planes into big buildings and Bush was there to do something about it instead of stand back... If not, then everyone would be jumping down his throat like they should be. He's a terrible leader and a terrible representation of the United States, and people continue to wonder why people hate us? Anyway, thats not the topic here.

This is pushing the limits. It's not exactly spam, but I'm pretty sure it's not what we're looking to have more of in OL. As much as I love Canadians, this topic can be no more. PS: I think of Canadians as peaceful hockey players.... not eskimos lol.

[url]http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29745[/url] there's already this thread here.... and if you want, here's another: [url]http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2785[/url]

I used to play football with friends, but never on a team thing... I simply couldn't do the practice crap. If I did play I would be on defense. I would have it no other way. Probably playing a safety since I tend to be good at reading passes from the quarterback and catching passes. I used to do it all the time at school when we'd play for fun or with friends.... It's something I wouldn't mind doing.

Err, these type of threads (ie: favourite threads) are discouraged here at OB. Esspecially this one which has been done a bajillion and one times. Please try to post something more information related or discussion related instead of every just posted "when Gohan turned SSJ2, that was super kooL!".... i mean... boring.... thread should be closed.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jinzouningen17 [/i] [B]*Raises from the dead* Wait a minute now, Gundam Wing, G Gundam, and Gundam X had some good animation. I'm sure you ment Mobile Suit Gundam, Zeta Gundam, and them other earlier Gundams had horrible animation. [/B][/QUOTE] Wing has it's moment,s but I didn't like X or G Gundam at all, then again I'm the Anti-Gundam, so I think it all sucks. Anyway, I don't think people realize just how old DBZ really is. Which is why they think it's lacking in quality, which is not true, it was pretty up to par in it's original days.

I think this thread falls under the ideals specified in the new Anouncement. It's been overused anyway and as many people have posted who will post.

Oh I like it.... it reminds me of the Oblongs for some reason though. lol Anyway. Very very nice Piro-chan.

Greatest game ever.... and therefor, greatest banner ever. Why did they name is Sper Mario Advance 4?.... why not just Super Mario Bros. 3 for the GBA... lol... sounds so much easier... anway, the game still kicks arse, and I like the specific art work you used, and the title font. The Advance title could go bye bye, cause thats just stupid (not in your banner, the whole concept of naming it that) All you need is Frog Suit mario and Mario in a shoe and you're all set.

They did make it better. It's called DragonBall GT lol. DBZ never worked completely with CGI and fairly good animation till the 12th movie rolled around. if you watch that movie, you'll see some very significant changes in animation styles and features, of course that movie came at the end of DBZ, so all new animation techniques had to wait till DBGT. On a side note, DB and DBZ were early animated. Early 90s almost. The animation is cheap cause thats the way it was back then, do some research to see. The only reason it doesn't look so much that way on American TV is because FUNimation makes the video quality a hell of alot better than it's original state. And in DB, they also made the music a bit clearer, although it still has that crappy 80s sound to it. You want bad animation, watch Gundam. Most of the earlier series, Wing, G Gundam, and X have some of the worst animation ever. Any anime made before 1998 seems to be lacking. Now-a-days the animation has skyrocketed in technology as far as visual effects and sound.

I thought the movies were funny.... I've seen all three movies and the TV show lol. I just like Tremors i guess.

This sounds very false, whether it is or not doesn't matter though. What matters here is the fact the kid did it on his own accord. He wasn't forced from what you stated, and well kids are kids and kids do stuff like that, believe it or not. Second, you can't be put on probation for giving oral sex at 9 years old to someone for a pokemon card. You wrote it as if you meant it that way and quite possibly, thats the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The counsiling thing I could believe though, but thats not the point. Third, if he's 16 now and it happened 4 years ago, that doesn't equal 9, Good try though. Forth, something like this would most likely NEVER be on the news, whoever stated this. Fifth, this doesn't surprise me, nor is it illegal. For him to give oral at that age for a pokemon card.... I've heard of and seen worse. For the two other kids, brothers or not, to have sex in front of him, well he could always just leave. And incenst, among brothers esspecially, has been on the rise for a while, as well as brother sister incest with younger children. It happens more than you'll ever think. Probably to someone you know too. It's not something that never happens. Sixth, this topic is just plain stupid anyway. From the way you wrote it, your friend wasn't pressured into anything and seemed to have done everything on his own will. Topic closed for lack of, well.... anything.