Transtic Nerve

I rather nitpicking with CS. I'm sure he likes it too, or else he probably wouldn't do it. Its the best way for us to understand each other better. Maybe we won't hate each other when it comes to the end of it. [QUOTE=Crimson Spider]Let me guess who told you: the media? According to the media (atleast 9/10ths of it in the western side of America), it is compeletly Bush's fault for the attack of 9/11. Don't forget to take into consideration the people themselves. In NV, power companies raise up the prices of power right before summer, and end it right before winter. One can say that they need the money, but in fact they don't. They raise up this money because they want change in their pocket. The media doesn't tell you that.[/quote] Actually, no. I rarely watch the news, rarely read up on news websites, I don't even read the paper. What I do know is that I have a lot of friends in High School. Lots of those friends aren't going to summer school this year. Lots of those friends didn't go last year because only certain amounts of schools were holding summer school sessions. Then i did some resarch on Jeb Bush's education policies. When Bill McBride ran last year, most of his campaign was on how Jeb Bush's education policies were ruining the education system in Florida. He used valid points and facts about Jeb Bush's educations policies. I will admit that some of the information did come from media sources, but not MSNBC or the Orlando Sentinel or anything like that. Theres a guy on the radio here that talks alot about politics, like Rush Limbaugh... He has no political affiliation and likes to rant about everything wrong in Orlando/Florida regardless who does it. (just for exmaple sakes, he has it out for the mayor of Orlando, and the mayor is a democrat) [quote]True that we didn't find actual WMP, but we did find a dozen different funded and in-action programs that were trying to manufacture chemical and nuclear weapons.[/quote] Yes, but Bush's administration said that Iraq HAD Weapons of Mass Destruction... and they didn't. Thats the point. Not that they had anything else, but that they didn't have what Bush's administration said they had. [quote]He wasn't the first one to claim that WMP were in Iraq. Other intelligences claimed*that, and he re-fed the information givin to him to the public. He wasn't lying, because he himself was lied too. If I remember many of his speaches correctly, the word "suspect" and "believe" were thrown everywhere. Remember to pay attention to what he says, not what others who possibly don't like him percieve of what he says.[/quote] I remember Donald Rumsveld (sp?) saying on several occations, smiling while he said it, that Iraq HAD Weapons of Mass Destruction. I agree the President was fed inadequate information, but it is his job, or the job of his administration, to make sure the info is correct. They failed to do that. It was Bush's idea to go to war on this theory of weapons of mass destruction, therefor I blame Bush and his adminstration for the war on Iraq. I also know other claimed to the same thing, but if we were talking about them, I'd say the same thing. Whether it is the CIAs fault, the FBIs failt, whoevers fault it may have been, the President will always and always has been blamed for them. Thats his position. Thats the connection the government has to the people, and that connection will be the one who gets all the dirt thrown at them. He should know that, he signed up for the job. [quote]The enviroment thing was the only thing I agree with. That's his flaw. And HE doesn't TAKE away rights. The president actually is just the final, over-throwable word. If he veto's a bill, it goes back to the House and Senate where they revote on it. If they vote it to be passed, it gets passed against his will, and he gets the blame for it. "Bush Administration" is just the whitehouse with the word Bush slapped in front of it.[/quote] I know HE doesn't take away rights (I did say his administration in that comment you referred to) Like I said, he is the connection to the people. He's the top of the government, anything that is passed, said, done, whatever during his time in office will be looked upon as something HE did. If you'd like I'll stop refering to things done by Bush and start saying Bush's adminstration.... or the government... whichever. Makes no difference. All leads back to one man people will think about. [quote]I remember you laughing at the accusations of another person that you were arrogant in other topics. [/quote] I wouldn't doubt that. Doesn't mean I denied my arrogance. [quote]Where did you get the opinion that I can't see that someone isn't ignorant in some places and smart in others?[/quote] By the way you were posting, you insinuated that I was being ignorant and you weren't. When infact we both were, probably on equal levels at some point. [quote]I'll gladly point out the very obvious implication.[/quote] When i said I never claimed to be anything, I meant I never claimed to God or anything like that. [quote]Througout the topic, you've been upholding the idea that you are absolutely right, and I and others are absolutely wrong (which ususally was your first statement)[/quote] Of course I would. What kind of debate would it be if i didn't think I was absolutely right. I'll just post topics with random things and say "eh, I'm probably wrong but......" Thats no fun. Certainly doesn't give my character anything possitive to work with. The idea of debating is to prove you're right.... if I don't think I'm right, how can I prove it? [quote]Prove me wrong :smirk:[/quote] See thats the spirit! [quote]Even a simple "I don't know" is better than silence when someone points it out.[/quote] Depends on the person. For you perhaps a simply I don't know would be fine, but to someone who strives on perfect, often like me, I don't know rarely cuts it. Plus, honestly. You write these huge responces, just look at the last one. I usually just glance over them picking out certain things that stand out. Responding to a few things like this isn't bad, but massive amounts of this that and the next... I don't have time for that. I have 3 papers and 2 final projects due in the next 3 weeks, I can't go around looking for everything you say. [quote]O.K. The more recent question of:"Why else do you think that YOU are the only one who has to engrade insults?", you claimed that you were braver than the people here after not answering it for awhile.[/quote] Because I can i guess. I honestly don't know why anyone else doesn't want to engrade insults, even though the only ones I gave were on MyOtaku and that was a rant. When i rant, I use language to intensify the feeling given. I suppose it can be a style of writting almost. I like using "bad" words and insults when I am mad and when i write about being mad cause it makes the reader feel what I'm feeling. That and I was really pissed at you. [quote]Then there was: "I never said that they became popular because they were in isolation. Where did you get that from?"[/quote] That was the way I interpreted what you said. Perhaps I missinterpreted. Perhaps I read someone elses comment in the mist of it all. I dunno, that was like 2 days ago. [quote]Then there is the question inclosed in this post of: "Where did you get the opinion that I can't see that someone isn't ignorant in some places and smart in others?".[/quote] I think I answered this one in this reply.... yes... yes I did. [quote]O.K. A person that can be classified as a "leader" is a person that basically thinks for themselves. While many people claim that they think from themselves, they actually aren't. An example would be many of the fashion trends of today. The person that came up with it was a leader, and the rest who adore it are followers. But if a person were to come up with an outfit that nobody openly liked, then they would be a leader without any followers. A follower consists of those that follow leaders, or the general populace. A follower without a leader is someone who doesn't know what to think, and often thinks of nothing, or stammers in responses. If that person were to be asked about the specific outfit and respond "I don't know... it's... it's kinda nice." are often times followers without a leader. Not everything is about definition. [/quote] While I understand your point, I believe a change in terms would have made that much clearer. Leader is defined as [i]someone who leads or guides, who is in command of others[/i]. Others being the key word there. Leaders, by deffinition cannot lead anything if they don't have anyone to lead. That would be more like an originator. Like in your example. Someone who creates a fashion trend no one likes... not really the leader of the fashion trend.... that would be the originator or creator of the fashion trend. Now a follower is defines as [i]one who subscribes to the teachings or methods of another; an adherent[/i] Another being the key word here. You cannot have a follower who does not follow someone or something. I believe a better term here would be a vagabond or a wanderer. You're right, not everything is about definition, but it certainly helps to use words which fit much better when trying to make a point. As much as your annologies looked good on paper, they didn't make any sense to me, which is why i asked about them. If you used creator and wanderer, I probbaly would have understood it a little bit better. Although it probably would have helped had you cleared that up int he original post. [quote]Three weeks was the analogy, not the fact.[/quote] Yes, I believe that's what i said... I said 2 days if I'm not mistaken. [quote]The agreement and manipulation of opinions could be considered enlightement. In a debate, not everyone thinks of the same arguement. When the arguement is brought fourth, one can agree with it, even if that persons original statement was on the line of what the other person said.[/quote] I don't think I've ever changed your opinion. Have I CS? You never changed mine. I don't expect to change others opinions. Usually opinions are a personal thing, not easily swayed. I didn't precieve my little rant would have honestly changed anyones personal feelings about you that they might not have already had. [quote]Logical reasoning. I usually listen to angry rock/metal music to vent. Reality check answer: the moral population of society often looks out for others self interests. [/quote] I usually rant about things I don't like when I want to vent. We all have our ways. I can't think of alot of people who look out for my self interests. Myabe thats just me. And who is to say what is and what isn't the moral population of society. Morals are a matter of opinion, there is no absolute truth in morals. [quote]Good ole reversal. What I define as fact is what I percieve as fact. I was using the logic in your statement to rebuke it.[/quote] I know. Reversal is a tactic in debating....You know what its all about I'm not wasting time going into detail. [quote]I remember a thread a while ago that had a lot of sceintifical theories about a persons soul and spirit. One of them said that hell was a state of mind, since it takes up no space in the phyiscal dimensions that we are in today, and since it does not, it does not experience temperature, but rather the emotion of a burning pain. But that was another person, and not me. [/quote] Interesting theory. I tend to think, personally, that our life on earth is hell, and that when we "die" we either go to heaven or whatever you may call it or stay on earth where our body rots in the hell we once lived... just a theory of course. [quote]One can and often states that these theories and opinions are absolute fact. I was just doing the what the norm debater does.[/quote] I certainly wouldn't think that. Scientists don't think theories or opinions are absolute fact. As a debater, I believe you should use opinions but you shouldn't use them if you're trying to prove the factual basis of something. You have to use facts to prove facts. Its kinda hard to use a bunch of opinions to prove something. Unless ofcourse you have done an experiemnt, developed a hypothesis, you know the scientific method I'm sure. [quote]It has to do with opinion. If one does not agree with something, they will deny it because they don't like it.[/quote] Yes, but how does asking a factual based question on whether or not John Adams signed the declaration or agreed to it or whatever you said have to do with an opinion? It seems more on the lines of a 'yes or no' than a 'maybe, maybe not' type of question. [quote]So correct me, and I'll interpret them right. I try to inform you of the mis-interpretations that you make of my statements.[/quote] I thought thats what I was doing?..... [quote]Orignally posted by Lea2385 Why do people have to swear on the Bible in court when the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in a federal building? [/quote] You don't have to as far as I know. I believe it is choice to place your hand on the bible while raising your other hand and swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth yadda yadda. They obviously can't make you swear on something you may not believe in.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']My point is that it is very possible that the charge for summers school might not come from Jeb himself, but rather the school itself.[/quote] Yes that is quite possible, but thats not the reason for it happening in Florida. It is happeneing because we have no money left in our education budget. [quote]Welcome to earth. The government constantly takes away my freedoms (even though I can go WAY off topic on the absence of your "equal rights"), is accused of lying by the democratic party (who've been caught lying themselves). The only thing that's true is that his natural enviromental polocies are crap.[/quote] When i said he lied to the American public (not democrats, you missread that) i was specifically referring to the "weapons of mass destruction" idea that never came true. He validated his whole purpose for war with Iraq on the bases of the so called weapons of mass destruction. And none were found, therefor he lied to the American public. I think I was perfectly understandable in my accusation. And you stated that he does take away your freedoms, or at least the government he heads does, and that you agreed with the environment thing. So I think all three of the things I stated were correct. [quote]I remember you once said that I was an arrogant little *** (how you managed to sensor-bypass that is beyond me) because you percieved that I wasn't taking into consideration my opponents arguements in a debate, whereas you do the exact same thing. Talk about the pot calling the pot black.[/quote] Well in my defense, I have never denied being arrogant or ignorant. [quote]Prove it then :D. If it is such absolute proof, as what Sicros defined as Even though I meant that the color that I see as green at a wavelength of 510nm would look like my orange to him, although he will know it as green since that was the definition assigned to it from his percpetion. So one wouldn't stare at the scroll bar and call it another color when it's obviously blue (liquid format). But is the same color you see the same that another person sees? If they see a different color, it will still be labeled as blue.[/quote] Everyone is ignorant in some sort of way, you not being able to see that, among other things, just simply makes you more ignorant than everyone else. [quote]So you claim to be of the supreme intrepid of the dis-agree-ers while as I've seen people openly dis-agree with me before. But not here. Noooooo. People here don't have to resort to that, where as other people (obviously more ignorant than you.) try their hardest. Reality check: You aren't this all-appealing role model of all that is absolutely correct. You most certainly aren't God. Don't try to make yourself out to be. BTW: All the questions I ask and you dodge (presumably out of fear) makes you look ignorant.[/quote] No I don't claim to be anything. I'm sorry, could someone point out where I said that? Now who's making assumptions CS? Yeah.... I'll let you slide on that one. PS: I'm certainly not afraid of you. If I were afraid of you I wouldn't post at all. All the things you missread that I say makes you look less intelligent. Like I said, I don't respond to your questions because I simply either don't want to, don't feel like it, or don't want to give you the pleasure of. Maybe I don't even know the answers to them, but neither would you if you're asking the question. I'll make you a deal, you go and find the questions you wrote that I didn't answer and I'll try my best to answer them this time. [quote]I can give about a dozen reasons why I don't support gay marriage that has little or nothing to do with the extreamly weak arguement over it's definition[/quote] Could you PM me with these reasons, I'd like to know them. If you wouldn't mind ofcourse [quote]There are two people in this world: Leaders and followers. A leader can have no followers, and followers can have no leader.[/quote] I'm sorry, by deffinition, that doesn't work, so would you please clarify? [quote]No. That is an obvious mis-perception made by you to further demean me.[/quote] I'm not the only one who made it. My boyfriend was standing right next to me while I typed my reply to you and even he couldn't figure out how that was a miss-perception. From what you said, your logic is how I posted. I bet you can ask anyone here that and they would agree, but that wouldn't mean anything.... by your logic. [quote]I don't go around reading your myOtaku specifically, or going to each and every link in peoples signitures in a paranoid manner of seeking what others may say about me. That's like making a bunch of posters in the school starting a rumor about someone. Sure, it's in a public place, but you didn't tell me about it until after you did it, and it was in a public place. But unless you go to that specific place, you aren't gonna know. Use a little reasoning before you state your actions. Being in college and all, you should be able to see where I'm coming from (the left, mind you).[/quote] I used reasoning. If I posted that on OB, I would be banned, therefor I posted it on MyOtaku. Thats reasoning right there. But I see your point. Sorry, nothing I can do about it. It's not like I showed you the link 3 weeks after I posted it. More like 2 days. Give or take. And it wasn't anything new about you. Its not like the people who read it were enlightened by what I had to say. If I can't say what i want to say here, I will say it someone else. Whether or not you know its there. I have to vent sometimes, and I'd rather do it on a journal than anywhere else. I'm not going to be looking out for your self interests in the process. Reality check: Since when has society been ones to look out for each others self interests. [quote]So you dodge it.[/quote] I don't see how agreeing with you is dodging anything, unless ofcourse you're dodging it yourself. [quote]Firstly, it's BASED on real occurences. I saw people changing their creed because some street magician made it look like he could float. That's not fact. And let me know if I'm getting this logic right: I experience your raw hatred and psychologically explained antics towards me for your own self-rightous purpose, therefor by definition you are merely venting your hatred toward the what you don't like and therefore are wrong in your accusations that I am ignorant.[/quote] If thats the way you see it. I'm not one to tell you how to precieve the world. I have a question though. How can you define what isn't a fact when its quite obvious you don't even know what IS a fact? (this is according to your debating of the word 'fact' which is seen above) [quote]To the residents it might be a cold day.[/quote] If you consider a cold day to be 300,000 degree. [quote]I did the research. And it ends up that if there were infact one base religion that we came from, then it would be that all of the "indevidual faiths" are what people percieved of this first religion, and didn't take it into consideration when they made the first civilization.[/quote] Thats crap. Because you'd know, if you did in fact do research, that those would be opinions on the origin on religion and faith. One does not know the true origin of faith in this world. We only have theories. [quote]But wasn't John Adams one of the guys who were against the signing of the declaration of independance?[/quote] I couldn't tell you. I don't know that much about John Adams. How does this pretain to the topic, or even the sub-topic concerning John Adams? [quote]Uh... dude... when I reply to your posts... I'm kinda reading them.[/quote] Yes, indeed you are reading them, however you interpret them wrong.

I though Mekhi Phifer's charatcer was not what I expected. In fact I found his character rather useless to the story line. I really saw no place in the movie for the scenes with his wife, baby, and him. I'd rather have seen him in a more serious role... perhaps the protagonist of the story.

[quote name='StarShine']...I just think it looks weird. Can anybody tell me what it's exactly gonna be about? And what is that thing...I don't think he can really pass as human.[/quote] That thing is Hellboy... and I don't think he's human. He's either a mutant or something from another planet. Regardless, it's a comic hero, they aren't exactly supposed to look human. Unless they want to be boring like Punisher or Daredevil lol.

[spoiler]At the very beginning of the movie, they kept giving clues as to what was happening. As Kent said, the victim coming in the hospital in the beginning, the news on the radio in her car on her way home spoke of some sort of outbreak or massive deaths or something. There were all sorts of clues. Apparently this was happening already and not just overnight.[/spoiler] Anyway, to whoeevr posted about the ruining of the movie by showing the scenes at the end of the movie during the credits.... [spoiler]They aren't supposed to live. The movie is dawn of the dead... not dawn of the dead and 4 survivors lol. Everyone is supposed to die. I think it made it much better because they all "died"... or else its just like any other movie about the sort... Too bad Kevin Zegers[/spoiler] had to die... shame.... oh well... I'll move on. Edit: Oop, I'm not used to this spoiler thing....

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]The military's rules on religion are if it's in the military chaplin's handbook, it's a recognized religion and should be allowed to be practiced. However, there are always prayers done during military functions. (I could tell you a great story about the last 'Holiday' party I went to with Lincoln) Including the Signal Ball where we said the Pledge, the National Anthem and a small prayer. I'm sorry, but I hadn't actually done the Pledge of Alligiance since 9th grade. However I guess you also have to do this before a movie on post. The prayer was a bit intrusive though. It's like reguardless of the handbook, any religion other than Christianity isn't acknowledged. The military has strange ways of showing support for practicioners of other religions. My husband has had his car photographed by his first seargeant and told he needs Jesus. So yeah, the military definately has different rules.[/color][/QUOTE] I wasn't specifically referring to the military. I was mearly citing an example of the fact that military and school grounds both have different rules than public grounds... And that maybe that was the problem.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact it happens on school property. According to the law, schools and military have different set of rules than public grounds. For example, any property owned by you can be searched under any reason if it is on school propery. After, before, or during school. Maybe the fact a religious act is taking place on property owned by the state is the problem here. If I am a senior in High School, I'm allowed to smoke cigarettes, but I can't on school property (at least in my old HS people couldn't) like I could on my own property. Specific rules apply on school property and perhaps the fact praying is going on on school property is what may bother someone. I personally think prayer is a personal thing and therefor should take place privately.

I never had a problem with prayer in schools so as long people are not forced to do it and that one religion is put over another. Meaing they have a time for Christian kids to pray and not Hindu kids or whatnot. I honestly wouldn't have a problem if there was just a "relaxed" time for a period of 3-5 minutes where kids could pray, relax, whatever they saw fit to do in that period of time. This way it doesn't give priority to just Christians, or any other religion, and it doesn't take away from those who may not want to pray to whomeever it is they pray. However, putting prayer in schools as a part of the curriculum takes away from that ideal of the seperation between church and state because you are implimenting a time for children to take part in a church related activity while in the process of doing something run by the state. But I don't believe it would be seen that way if schools were sly enough to call it a "relaxed" time. Because that time and phrasing of the words doesn't insinuate any sort of religious involvement.

I agree that Atheism isn't a religion.... Religion, by the definition given is a set of beliefs, values, and practices (one of the 5 or 6 listed). Atheism is not that. Atheism is simply a belief that there is no god or gods. There are no values or practices or moral or anything else associated with religion in the belief of Atheism. It's just simply a belief, nothing else, and just because you have a belief doesn't mean it's a religion. You can have absolute truth without a higher power.... thats called the belief in science. Things don't happen because of God, things happen because it's what supposed to happen scientifically or naturally. Whether or not any of that is true is something we will probably never know.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']The Clark County School District is over 100,000,000 million dollars in dept (even after the 70,000,000 that our district recently recieved) and is ranked 43rd in the educational value. We have no problem with having summer school here.[/quote] I don't care if you have summer school or not, thats not the subject, or did you not read the thread. It's about Jeb Bush's pollicies. And under Jeb Bush, we don't get summer school. I couldn't give a damn about whether or not you do. [quote]My problem is with the needless, childish, and arrogant Bush-Bashing that you stubbornly adheive to based on limited data and refuse to even let the thought that he can do something good for this nation. You deliberately go out of your way to voice your raw hatred for the Bush name. It seems to me like you are trying to justify your hatred. And to think I thought that [b]I[/b] was arrogant.[/quote] I don't go out of my way, I WANT to tell you how horrible Bush is cause apparently you are also running on limited data if you believe he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. He's a horrible president who takes away my freedoms, lies to the american public, and who is caring less and less about the environment which we live in. And that's just naming 3 things wrong with him. I'm not arrogant, I'm simply saying I think Bush is horrible. [quote]Obvious lie.[/quote] Calling you ignorant is NOT bashing you, it's telling the absolute truth, cause you are one the most ignorant people I've ever had the displeasure of meeting. Besides those rednecks down the street. [quote]Why else do you think that YOU are the only one who has to engrade insults? (If you don't answer this one, this will be the third unanswered question I've asked you).[/quote] Because they won't say it here because they are fearing they might get banned if they say what they really think. I don't fear that and I'm more than willing to tell you how much I can't stand you. And it's also not my priority to answer every question you ask. I don't have to answer ANY question you ask. You most certainly aren't God. [quote]People aren't disliking me. They're agreeing with you.[/quote] lol, thats the most ridiculous thing you've said yet. So if I say I hate you and they agree, they aren't saying they hate you.... so if President Bush says we should ban gay marriage and you agree with him, you don't actually think we should ban gay marriage? Thats your logic. Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Maybe you should read what you write before you post it. After you take that reading course that is. [quote]You didn't even tell me you wrote it until after awhile. That's like starting a rumor, and then revealing a week later that you were the one who started it. That is quite behind my back.[/quote] I wrote it before I posted that reply. I'm sorry i didn't PM you first thing to have you read it. It's in a public forum, there's been a link in my signature and by my username since I wrote it. EVERYONE can see it. Thats not behind your back. And the reason I posted it there is because I can't post it here. It would be deleted. [quote]"Your post is off-topic and shouldn't be here," .[/quote] I couldn't agree more with everything you've posted [quote]Define fact. How can you prove that this word is [color=green]Green[/color]? What is percieved as reality is merely speculation based on random data. How are you sure that the color I'm seeing is your orange? [/quote] Fact: Knowledge or information based on real occurrences. I'm experiencing your ignorance in real life, therefor by deffinition, you are ignorant. [quote]Or we'll be right and you'll be wrong.[/quote] Yes, when hell freezes over. [quote]Ah yes, your point. First, you declair that my simple sentence wasn't true, where as the actual statement wasn't arguementive. Then you state that indevidual religion came first, then you go on a needless 2 paragraph Bush-Bash, then you use a phantom quote from someone too arguement that America wasn't found on Christianity. I don't see a point other than for you to vent.[/quote] A sentence can be non-argumentative and still not be true (ie: Wendy's is owned by McDonalds. This is a non argumentative sentence yet, it is not true). Individual religion did come first. Do some research if you don't believe me. When there is no civilization, one cannot have organized religion. I think several other people made that quite clear. Those two paragraphs were on topic about Jeb Bush. And the quote was by John Adams, perhaps you have heard of him... if not let me say that he was a founding father who was the second president of the United States. His wife Abigail Adams was one of the first women to stand up for their rights in America. And it was a true quote, telling me you think it's phantom just shows me how true your ignorance really is. I'm simply either replying to what you or someone else said in all these cases or replying to the topic. Maybe you should go back and read my posts. [quote]I mean, crap man. The only person I've really had on-topic discussion with is Godelsensei.[/quote] Maybe cause you stray off topic with everyone else, including me.

As far as Hyde leading Laruku... it is usually looked upon as the lead singer in the band being the leader. Thats the case with almost all bands out there. I typically don't like the "leader" of a band idea. I think it takes away from the whole being of a group.

[quote name='Japan_86']I would of replied saying that you were wrong on your MyOtaku, but I know you well enough that you would just delete my comment, so I didn't bother. [/quote] I haven't deleted anyone else's comment, I don't see why I would delete yours. You have a right to your opinion whether I think it's wrong or right. I wouldn't delete your comment, I would simply respond to it, like I am here. [quote]It was officially stated in a court in the 1960's that Atheism was a type of religion. If you believe that there is no God, or gods, then you believe in something, thus, Atheism a kind of religion. Then I demand that Atheism goes against Separation of Church and State. If Christianity can't be in the court systems, then Atheism shouldn't be in the courts either.[/quote] By law, the United States has to determine what is and isnot a religion due to certain tax breaks religions get in this country. Atheism in the courts has nothing to do with seperation of church and state. They aren't preaching atheism in our government like they are preaching Christianity. Plus as stated above, Atheism isn't a religion, it is a lack there of. It's more of a belief than a religion. There is a difference as I'm sure you know. [quote]Also, about what you said of those Evangelists that stuff Christianity down your throats from a day to day basis. You get upset and claim that all Christians are like that. In fact, not at all. This whole situation reminds me of a story. What I am saying, is that you can't have one or two bad experiences and label all Christians that way. In fact, I don't really like those Evangelists. They are way too straight forward and in your face. I feel that if believers of Christ did that, they would just end up rejecting all chances with that non believer.[/QUOTE] I don't remember saying anything about evangelists. I rememebr saying that I don't like people who shove religion in my face, regardless who they are. They could be Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, whatever. If they shove it in my face and tell me I'm wrong because I don't believe in their silly nonesense then I won't like them. I know damn well that all Christians don't shove their religion in everyone's face. My mom's a Christian and she never forced me to goto church or went against me when I came out of the closet. My mom's parents are Christians too and I'm closer to them then I am any of my other family. One of my good friends on this board is a devote Christian, and I respect him more than anyone else here cause he doesn't throw it in my face. I don't care what religion you are but don't shove it in my face and don't let your religion get in the way of your logic. When you do that you lose all view of the real world.

[quote name='Japan_86']The purpose of the crusade was to look for artifacts from The Last Supper, and to spread the good news of Christianity. No one knows exactly every detail that they did during that time. [/quote] The purpose of the crusades was a holy war (hence it's name), not to look for something. Looking for something isn't a war, and many many muslims and Christians wouldn't have been killed looking for the Holy Grail. King Author had it anyway if you read those legends. The Crusades was the slaughter of many Muslims by Christians because they "wanted to spread the word" which apparently was "believe us or die".... seems so much like today. If you don't believe in Christianity, well you must certainly be wrong about everything else. I also didn't know the "Good news" of Chirstianity included the death of any Muslim who stood in their way. I wouldn't call that "Good News"... would you? I also didn't know I had picked any of your other straws. [quote]I too live in the US and I too deal with every single law passed. Me not quite 18 yet doesn't mean I don't have the right to protest and write petitions. I will be 18 in July, so I can vote then. How can you tell that the Bush family is doing a horrible job? Are you that liberial? What if Al Gore was president? What would Al Gore do that was any better?[/quote] Live in Florida under Jeb Bush. Before Jeb Bush we had summer schoo in almost every schooll, now because of Jeb Bush NO school in Florida can AFFORD it and now are beginning to CHARGE people to take summer school classes. Schools don't get any money, teachers are paided much less than they should be and Florida continues to be ranked among the last in education. Now, that might be only one example of the many but I simply don't have time to address every single issue that Jeb has screwed us over with. now tell me that this great school system Jeb Bush has put in place isn't horrible? If you think its not try getting an education here. What if Al Gore was president? What if? He's not. I can't tell you what he would do, I can only tell you what Bush has done. I personally didn't like Gore, I liked John McCain. A REPUBLICAN! OHHHH TN LIKES A REPUBLICAN! WRITE IT DOWN QUICK! So lets not talk about Gore, lets talk about What if John McCain was president? I am not a compelte liberal, I like who is best for the job and George W Bush is NOT the best person to be president, therefor I don't like him. Have a problem? Too bad. [quote]Though Catholicism is a bit more materialistic than other denominations or non denominations, not all of Christianity is that way. If you ever researched Protestant or Lutheran, or even Methodist, you would find out that not all Christian based schools are about the money.[/quote] So may be the case, but that has no relevance. I was only posting a responce to the statement by Winter. Which was pretaining to a Catholic school. I had no intention of refering to other religions that were never stated. [quote]How can you be 100% sure that they are the facts? Have you read about every single thing about these subjects? Not just the liberial sources, but also the conserative sources? Have you even read the Koran all the way through? The Bible? Every religious text? If you haven't, how can you know all the "facts?" Chris, why must you bash every member and thing you don't like repeatedly on you MyOtaku? I read your MyOtaku and it wasn't very nice. You or anyone shouldn't put people down like that. Talking behind someone's back is something I look greatly down upon.[/quote] I never bashed anyone here. I told the facts about what CS is (Thats what I refering to when I said facts, not any opinions I might have had). He's ignorant. If you can't see that, you are too. And I'm not talking behind his back. I posted in a public place where he can read it all he wants. I can't say what I said in MyOtaku here or I'd get banned, which is why I said it in MyOtaku. If you don't like it, idon't read it. No one is forcing you to. And on a side note, I'll talk about who ever I want, whenever I want and I will say whatever I want about them. You, CS, James, and GOD can't stop me from doing it. And have you read the Qu'ran all the ay through? The Torah? even the Bible? Many Christians haven't even read the bible all the way through, how can you expect me to. I bet CS hasn't even read the bible all the way through, neither have you probably. I also don't use liberal "facts." I don't like the words liberal or conservative, only people wholike to seperate things use those words. People who can't think of people as united and who must divide themselves from others use those words. I use only my opinion and the truth, nothing more, nothing less. [quote]Again, how do you know that you are 100% right? You should know that you don't know every single thing about everything. You may be the wrong one. If you say that Crimson may not know any better just because of his religion, that is pretty shallow minded. You may just be a stubborn. It seems like you are, Chris. It is not 3 against 1 anymore. Crimson is not alone anymore. If you thrash about me on your MyOtaku, so be it. Maybe you'll understand better someday, Chris.[/QUOTE] I understand myself perfectly fine. Its you who doesn't understand me. If you believe CS, fine, thats your choice, but if you do what he does, you'll be wrong too. I'm not even going to bother to respond to CS, my point was made, he just doesn't see it yet. What I said in Myotaku was practically agreed with by EVERYONE who responded to my post. Not one person who responded to my post said that I was wrong. Now if everyone agreed with me, that makes me think that I am right in my assumptions. And the seperation of church and state is IMPLIED int he constitution. So has been said by the founding fathers and so has been said MANY times after. There is an understanding of a seperation of Church and State in this country.

Yeah, it's kinda illegal to hack something... if you want to know, learn yourself. I'm sure there is tons of internet resources.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Or I'm pointing out how wrong YOU are and it just so happens that the people who dis-agree with me are more liberal than I am. Have you ever considered the positibility that you are wrong, and that I am right? I've done so.[/quote] Yeah I did do that, then I laughed so hard I couldn't breathe cause there is NO way in hell YOU could ever be right when you post your ridiculous none-sense. [quote]Little history behind the Crusades: when Muslims inhabited the Christian churches in Rome, the resident rulers of Europe didn't like that, and went to war for political reasons alone, instead of just kindly asking them to leave. They weren't acting in the name of God when they went to war. [/quote] Little history behind the crusade. The muslim people were VERY tolerant of ANY religion within their lands (you could believe and practice any religion). It was the Christians who brought war upon the Muslims because of the fear of the Muslim expansion into the so called Christian lands, in fact thats the reason for the Muslims dislike towards Christians today. . The whole reason they went to war was because of religion and fear that maybe, maybe the muslims were better people. The reason they went to war was because of religion. If it was because of political reasons it wouldn't be called a Crusade... or do you need a dictionary to go with your BS... [quote]Possibly. They were possibly made up by the same person. As you may or may not believe, there are thousands of years since the first men. In a thousand years, a lot can happen. Just look at the most recent 1000 years. And the teaching of mythology is part of the highschool English course in LV. You seem to be forgetting that they are not originated within complete isolation of eachother, since organized religions cannot be isolated. So much as one traveler can change a lot of things. One man started up Christianity, one man started up Confusionism. If all it takes is one man, then isolation isn't really existant in the religious perspective.[/quote] There is no possibly. Hinduism started in a totally different place than Christianity. Yet both are similar if you look at the stories. And they can't be organized religions when they originate... Something just doesn't originate with a huge following.... I said they originated in isolation, not became popular due to isolation, maybe you need to take a reading course along with that Mythology course. [quote]Heighnsight Biased. And I know everything that is being posted up in this thread about it. You've demonstrated before that you have a raw and almost mindless hatred for the name Bush, so I won't put it past you. And do you work in the resident government? Do you have copies of every single law, bill, and action that is going on? So then you yourself are making statements based on limited data. [/quote] No, I live here. I DEAL with every single bill passed. I DEAL with every single law passed. YOU don't. You have no idea what Jeb Bush is doing. On a seperate note, the Bush family has continued to proove their stupidity and ignorance in their political offices. I only precieve them as they are. Just as when I see your name on a topic, I automatically assume your responce will be one that I can laugh at because of it's pure silly-ness and lack of intelligence. [quote]No. Seems like all it takes is money to get someone in the school, not to be a believer. [/quote] One normally goes to a catholic school because they believe in catholism.... or else they'd call it a "school" and not a "catholic school." And if they kicked her out for NOT believing, then let her in because of money, that also insiuates that the money can look past the conception of not believing. Therefor they pretend she is believing because of the amount of money they recieved. Did you not read that post either? You should really take a reading course. [quote]Let me tell you a story. One time in a presidential debate, one of which you stated that I was just a little kid, and I would never understand. And then you say this statement. The last time I heard this statement was when three 7-year-olds were fighting over who got to play with the a ball. You claim to be superior to me in thought simply because of age, Yet your post has un-provoked and reasonless insults placed in them. Why is that?[/quote] Oh no, my posts here don't have any insults in them, they tell only the facts (maybe if you read them you'd know that). If you want to see what I really say about you when I use insults, you can read myOtaku. Look, it's obvious you're getting no where. Probably because you're consistantly wrong. But I don't hold that against you, you just don't know any better. When you posted above that 3 against 1 isn't fair, thats because we can see just how insanely silly your posts are. It's like reading a comic strip and you're the joke.

[quote name='Winter']I actually was expelled from that school in 1st grade for questioning my teachers; only got back in after a few bribes from my papa.[/quote] Seems all it takes is money to pretend someone is a believer.... lol

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Now TN's in this too. 3 agaisnt one isn't too fair...[/quote] Actually it's quite fair. We're just pointing out how wrong you are. It's unfair you are so uninformed. [quote]Usually is less than 'Most". Just to point that out. [/quote] Very good, you want a cookie for knowing what usually and most means? [quote]Also, I've seen many a person become a generally better person because they found religion. There is no reason why someone who volunteers there would not do the same. People use religion as a scapegoat, and are mostly psychologically crazy when they commit the act. You cannot point the blame squarely at religion.[/quote] I can't help what people use as scapegoats. The bottom line is they use religion. Sorry but that makes religion responsible for it. Something in that religion made them go all crazy. I suppose religion was just a scapegoat for the people killed in the crusades too right? Cause religion had NOTHING to do with that. The bottom line is, it is because of religion that some of the worst things in this world have happened. Whatever way you put it that fact stands, there's no going around it. Just accept it. [quote]The peculiar thing is that all of the individual faiths that came around were eerily similar.[/quote] And so are so many of the religions today. Does that mean they are all the same? Or made up by the same person? Take a mythology course and you'll see how closely related almost every religion is to one another despite the fact some of them originated with complete issolation from the other. [quote]You know, if Jeb's last name was Gore, you would've been for it. Just something I've been observing from you.[/quote] What? No i wouldn't have been. If his name was Jeb anything I wouldn't be for what he's doing. It has nothing to do with his political party or his last name.... it has to do with what he's doing to this state which I live. Do you live here? Do you experience what he does? You know nothing about it. [quote]Anyway, the opinion of one man does not change the entire history of the U.S. of A. Even if it wasn't founded on religion, it's laws were based on it. That's why the 10 commandments were in the Courts for so long.[/quote] And the opinion of yourself doesn't change the fact you're still wrong and too ignorant to accpet that fact.

My boyfriend once gropped me while watching Shamu at SeaWorld.... HOW GAY IS THAT!?

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Gladly. The religious re-habilitation would help to reduce the violent tendancies. [/quote] Thats a matter of opinion, and certainly NOT fact. In fact some of the most violent people this world has seen have been very religious people. It's usually because of their religion that they do their violent things. Individual faith also was around before any type of society was developed. This is evident in cave paintings and sculptures dating from ancient times before we know of any society or community existing. The statue "Venus of Willindorf" (sp?) is a good example of this Anyway, it doesn't surprise me about Jeb Bush doing all this stuff. He's the worst thing to happen to the state of Florida since slavery was introduced. I live in Florida, I experience it first hand. I honestly couldn't see how he got elected to a second term two years ago or whatever it was. I certainly didn't vote for him. Oh yeah, and under our current president, there is no such thing as seperation of church and state, apparently he forgot to read the constitution. I also leave with a quote from a founding father and ex president: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.? ~John Adams.... I dunno how much clearer you can get...

I saw the Animatrix when they first released it online some time back (3 or 4 episodes?) and then saw it in full a month before they released the DVD. I was rather impressed. I liked how they told background stories through other means. The Animatrix, Enter the Matrix, etc etc... Some of it was confusing, but oh well. I'll probably watch it today again actualy, thanks for the reminder.

When i was in 11th grade, there was a huge drug bust in two schools, one of which was mine. Several people I knew were arrested, people I never thought would have been into such things. People I've known for years and years. It kinda hit close to home seeing as how this was plotted out for some time and police officers walked right into the classrooms and handcuffed and took away those who were being arrested right infront of everyone else. It was a real eye opener for some. It was then we realized that the school phones and pay phones were tapped along with several Narcs inside the school. People started freaking out, afraid they be caught or something... I dunno. Another time was a bomb threat on our school shortly after the Columbine incident. We still went to school that day... Nothing happened. I don't think we've ever had anyone in our school arrested for making anything quite like bombs... We had the drug bust and several teachers were let go because of sexual relations with students, but thats pretty much it.

Hmmm.... Friend as in best friend? Friend as in boyfriend or girlfriend? Friend as in acquaintance? Friend as in co-worker? Friend as in some guy who sells you drugs off the street corner? You gave your definition, a well thought out one, of making out, yet left out what you consider a friend to be... Therefor based on the vagueness of the question, I cannot honestly give you a truthful answer. PS: You spelled Osiris wrong. Unless thats some sort of reference to something I am not aware of...

[quote name='ss3-brolly']why you haten on me this the way I talk this how most black people talk lets bring the stupid down a few level smart one :mad:[/quote] Point proven.... quite well too. Anyway. My top 3, not in any specific order: Star Wars: Return of the Jedi Jurassic Park tie between Independence Day and any one of the Lord of th Rings movies.

The horrible grammar and spelling make me feel kinda sick.... This topic will be closed for the reason of pure stupidity and lack of conversation it will provide. Just as your other useless topic was.

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green][b]People who disagree with the war in Iraq[/b']: So our intelligence was faulty and there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. The rest of the world was wrong too, as were all of Saddam?s generals. The fact remains that Saddam was an unstable dictator funding terrorists and threatening US interests in the Middle East (Israel and Oil). Not to mention he was a terrible violator of human rights?[/color][/quote] And the fact also remains that the Bush administration [B][I][U]LIED[/U][/I][/B] (let me say that one more time so you can understand it... [b]LIED[/b]) about the whole reason for going to war. Maybe you don't get it, cause for some reason you like Bush, but the main reason people, like me, are against the war is because friends and family of people I know are dying for A LIE! If Bush would have just said "we're going to war because Saddam is a horrible person who needs to be removed" there wouldn't be a dispute on alot of people's part. Oh and where is the link to Al Queda, Bin Laden, or any other strong terrorist threat and Saddam Hussein? Anyway, this thread isn't about how horrible the Bush adminstration is.... so I'd like to add that I also don't like people who lie, like Bush. PS: Waffles are good, you just shouldn't eat them with ***** on them.