Charles

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Amphion [/i] [B] No. ITs not unconstitutional. It would be if kids where forced to say it. The Super intendent of the school system said it himself that the children where not forced to say the PoA. It was optional. So there for it can in no way be unconstitutional[/B][/QUOTE] Back when I was in school, we were forced to at least stand for it, and depending on the teacher, say it. Those who refused were sent to the principal's office and punished by means of detention or a short suspension. I personally don't see the big deal over one word and agree that it would be just as easy for an individual to replace the name "God" with whatever they choose. [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B]I was gonna make this topic god dammit! [/B][/QUOTE] I should mention that I'm offended by that. The word "God" before "damnit" is against my beliefs. Please remove it and substitute "God" with "The Big Giant Head" (Third Rock from the Sun, rules).

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by BabyGirl [/i] [B] [color=deeppink][I] And half of the people who commit homocide probably can't be rehabilitated, and yet those who admit to mental illness are sent to centers [i]for[/i] rehabilitation. [/i][/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Well, that's a large chunk of my point. I have no qualms with someone being sent to a rehabilitation center [I]if[/I] rehabilitation is possible. Thus, there are degrees to which I feel the death penalty should be carried out. If someone with a mental handicap committed a freak accident and killed someone, then I have no doubt that they should be inserted into a rehabilitation program. However, should this same person pick up a knife and slice someone to ribbons, then they have a serious problem. My question is, "How is it possible to rehabilitate someone who has no way of comprehending the wrongfulness of their crime in the first place?" Should the accused be mentally retarded, but able to face successful rehabilitation after committing an accidental murder, then I support the process. Hmmm, I don't want to sound like a monster taking this position. But these arguments are kinda hard to word without sounding a little cold. :o Oh yeah, and I should bring up something about your point Lady Macaiodh. Imprisoning innocent people is also wrong, but we cannot empty the prisons because of that minimal risk. If improvements are needed in the system of representation, or in the use of scientific evidence such as DNA testing, then those reforms should be instituted. However, the need for reform is not a reason to abolish the death penalty. Besides, many of the claims of innocence by those who have been released from death row are actually based on legal technicalities. Just because someone's conviction is overturned years later and the prosecutor decides not to retry him, does not mean he is actually innocent. Anyway, even the theoretical execution of an innocent person can be justified because the death penalty saves lives by deterring other killings.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by BabyGirl [/i] [B] [color=deeppink]Because they're human beings, too :)[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] That have killed another human being. ;)

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lady Macaiodh [/i] [B] [color=darkblue]the death penalty is just barbaric. if you think about it, what's the real difference between, say, a lynching & lethal injection?[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] I can answer that. A lynching is the victimization of an innocent person (usually based on ethnic prejudice). The death penalty is punishing someone for an actual crime. Thus, it's unfair to compare the two. Plus, as Justin mentioned, it's a bit cruel to keep someone imprisoned for an extended period of time. People are social animals. When they're cut off from society, their mentality can be weathered and further warped. My main point concerning this issue, is that there's no point in keeping a person that can't even reason, alive in an institution, when they are dangerous to others in an unsupervised environment. If they can't be rehabilitated, then what's the point?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Son Goten [/i] [B][color=red][b]Well, I think it will save the X-Box. There is a version of Counter-Strike: Condition Zero that will be released for X-Box. I think that may have multi-player capacity. And if it does, everyone who plays CS on the computer will have a X-Box.[/b][/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Well, there's a problem with that. Why would someone who owns Counter-Strike for the PC, want to buy an X-Box for the game? Maybe there'll be a wealth of improvements. I mainly hope that Microsoft doesn't shoot itself in the foot by allowing too many sub par PC conversions.

The Universe will be theirs? That slogan leaves a lot to be desired. The Z-Warriors never collectively search for the balls in order to take over the universe. I'm willing to bet that a lot of characters will be cut. I can't see how they would fit the character development of the series into one movie.

Yeah, well it was kind of a one trick pony. You're saying that compared to the Mario games, it wasn't dumbed down? Pffft.

As any knowledgeable Xbox gamer knows, Microsoft has shed some light on it's online plans. Cool features, such as being able to search for one's friends online, regardless of the game they're playing. Furthermore, switching games won't require resetting the console. Rather, one can just eject the disc and put in the new game. For your information, Microsoft will be releasing the Xbox Live Starter Kit for $49.95. Judging from what I read in Game Informer, the service is based on a yearly subscription model, and is hosted on the company's servers. This should free developers from having to do it themselves. Anyway, the kit will include a voice communicator that even lets one mask their identity. That's cool to say the least. Stat tracking will also be included, which is good. People that bail out when they're losing deserve swift electric shocks. Now, onto the point of the thread. Do you feel that if Microsoft pulls off what it promises, that the Xbox can be salvaged and become a worthy competitor on the market? J Allard claims that 60 companies have committed to Xbox Live and that there will be 50 online titles by the end of next year. I don't know if I can believe that though. The year is half over and barely anything worth noting has been released for the console. I'm wondering if online gaming would truly spark this much interest in the system.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by LittleFluteSan [/i] [B]And as much as I hate to argue with a moderator, SuperSaiyan, your colleagues present good points... [/B][/QUOTE] lol, I hate that attitude. Please don't look at me like that at least. I'm just like you guys, not some all-knowing God. Staff isn't here for the purpose of bullying people into agreeing with everything they believe. I know you said SuperSayian, but colleagues includes me. ;) Anyway, I'm still going with the consensus that they were equal with one another. Although Gokou had trained as a SSJ2 for a long period of time, Vegeta's strength was enhanced with magic. Unlike Super Saiya-jin level 3, this form isn't a far stretch to master. Essentially, it's just like Super Saiya-jin level 1, but with increased speed and strength. We could debate up and down over who was stronger, but the fact is that Gokou mentioned himself, that he and Vegeta were equal in strength at Super Saiya-jin 2. Well, that and the [I]fact [/I]that in the subs, themselves, he told Vegeta that he would use his full Super Saiya-jin 2 power in the fight to finish him off quickly. Vegeta specifically mocked Gokou later on in the battle for not finishing the fight quickly, as he had promised to do.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Solid Snake [/i] [B] [color=teal] Personally, I can't wait for it. In fact, I am more eager about this game than even Mario Sunshine. But I don't want to judge either game too much, not until we explore the gameplay, the most essential aspect of a game. It seems like one of those moments where only time will tell.[/color] :blah: [/B][/QUOTE] Yeah, I just hope that they don't dumb this game down like Luigi's Mansion. Admittedly, the gameplay was pretty good in Luigi, but the overall game fell short of it's expectations. On that note, I hope that this game still retains that Wario feel.

I also purchased this game on release, even choosing it over Stuntman. The visuals do a very nice job of creating the cliche spooky atmosphere. Nice touches, such as fog rolling across the floor and brilliant lighting truly capture the terror that this game personifies (meaning how the characters create much of the fear themselves through illusions and such). Although some of the locations are repeated, there are varying touches that keep them fresh, such as vestige protruding through the jungle temple as time weathers it. The characters are a mixed bag. Nice touches such as facial expressions and unique animations make them attractive, while slight jaggedness keeps them from matching the level set in Resident Evil. I was a bit disappointed with the full motion video as well. The graininess is reminiscent of a Sega CD game. It's not quite as bad, mind you, but I still know that GameCube is capable of so much more. As I expected, the sound, whether it be the narration, character dialogue, or dauntingly surreal music, is top notch, further enhancing the story. I really expected a lot from Silicon Knights in this area and they delivered. Hearing the characters (or other manifestations) wail and talk to themselves really beats the heck out of Luigi humming to himself, lol. Some of the voice actors could have been a bit more convincing, but I'm not going to nitpick. Awesome details, such as characters speaking their native tongue and having it morph into English as they talk, definitely create a movie atmosphere. I prefer the control to that of Resident Evil. The most was made out of the GameCube controller. I glanced at the manual, picked this game up, and had no problem. The little tutorials do their job, without interrupting the game [I]too much[/I] and that's just how I like it. This game is really tricky though. More than once I've gotten lost, only to discover that the answer was directly in front of me all along. Eternal Darkness definitely hurt my ego, that's for sure. Although the monsters aren't nearly as challenging as Resident Evil's, the layout of the environments makes for much closer attention and careful exploration. I'm satisfied, that's for sure. No one can call this a Resident Evil clone. The overall experience is just so much more than a typical survival horror game.

This game isn't worthy to Final Fantasy Tactics at all. It isn't fair to put the game down solely for that one shortcoming, because in my opinion, Final Fantasy Tactics is the best strategy rpg on the console market. However, little failures end up becoming huge annoyances. The biggest quirk is the fact that once a party member falls, he or she is gone for good. Factor into the formula the hindrance of recruiting all new help that start at level 1 and you've got yourself a strategy game that just doesn't stand up to already stiff competition.

I've heard that this game is about 100 hours in length, so it should keep you busy. The graphics aren't very good at all, from what I've seen and read. In a world of high res, anti aliased, mip mapped, monsters the visuals will look downright ugly by today's standards. But, if you can't get past that, you don't belong playing rpgs in the first place, heh heh. After all, rpgs were never much to look at until Square created a monster in Final Fantasy VII. Now production values seem to take priority over game mechanics and length. Not so with this game, however. Oh no, on the contrary, this is classic rpg gaming at it's best. If you're a true gamer, you'll most likely love this one. It was the best selling PSX game in Japan. That speaks volumes.

Well, actually Neil, I believe that Gokou didn't go Super Saiya-jin 3 during the fight because he wanted to enjoy the thrill of fighting an evenly matched warrior. Furthermore, he didn't want to transform unless he absolutely had to. Remember, he even stated this before actually transforming before Majin Buu. Gokou knew that transforming would take away his time left on Earth. No one actually won the fight though. It was a draw. Vegeta knocked Gokou out after the fight was over.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Solid Snake [/i] [B][color=teal]I heard about it on G4 (Comcast digital cable, channel 138), and supposedly Doom III for the PC won awards for best visuals and best sound.[/color] :blah: [/B][/QUOTE] Heh heh, too bad when I watched the coverage they barely showed Doom 3. There was a brief clip and they went back to clammoring over that Tron version 2.0 crap. It's good news to hear about Zelda doing well. I'm just disappointed that it won't be out until next year. Nintendo really should push for it to be a big holiday release.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by scythemaster29 [/i] [B]Honestly I think that THPS series is getting a little boring :sleep: I hope 4 will spice things up................... :sleep: [/B][/QUOTE] Well, in all honesty, since the single player game is being totally overhauled, the game should really add a new flavor. It is a little disappointing that no online plans have been announced for the GameCube or Xbox versions of the game though.

Well, if you're on Mission 13: Aurora Attack, then blast the subs with AGM900s. So, take as many of that type of missile as possible. Also, I hear that it's best to ignore the CGT3 and Tiger. That's about as much help as I can provide for this game, considering that I'm not much of a fan of flight sims.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crazy White Boy [/i] [B]lol, I'm actually entering this in an online poetry contest. I'll let you guys know if I win. I'll bring it home for otaku, yeah baby! :toothy: [/B][/QUOTE] Well, here's the update. I got this in my e-mail this morning. :) [Quote][B]It's my pleasure to inform you that you've been invited to present your poetry and receive the International Poet of Merit Silver Award Bowl at the International Society of Poets Summer Convention and Symposium (our 14th Convention) to be held August 23-25, 2002, in the U.S. Capital, Washington D.C.[/Quote][/B] lol, I doubt I'll go, but this is certainly flattering. *does a happy dance*

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by BabyGirl [/i] [B] [color=deeppink]V_V;; I'm waiting for the day when we stop calling them "retarded people" and start saying "someone with a mental disability". They shouldn't have to be classified as a lesser 'people' just because of a mental condition.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] Well, I'm sorry Babygirl, but I just don't see anything wrong with the phrase if it is used correctly. The fact of the matter is, the term "retarded" means that someone is slow or limited in intellectual development. As long as the term isn't used in an abusive way, there is nothing wrong with it. Mental retardation is a condition that I don't make light of, so take into consideration the fact that I'm not throwing around the term in an attempt to degrade anyone. Anyway, when someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Unless that balance is restored, society succumbs to a rule of violence. Only the taking of the murderer's life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind. I feel that if murderers [I]knew[/I] that the death penalty would surely follow their crimes, they wouldn't be so quick to act. Now, even a three year old should understand that hurting people is wrong. Unless they find a gun and accidentally shoot someone, chances are that they'll be stuck in an institution for an extended period of time. More than likely, a child would [I]accidentally[/I] kill someone in the case of a parent's ignorance, because they don't have the physical capabilities to carry out murder. Anyway, in response to Lady Macaiodh, there is a certain area in which people can be removed from death row based on IQ level. Before being relieved from the sentence, it must be proven that they indeed did not comprehend the wrongfulness of the crime they committed. It seems that everyone is ignoring one of the most important issues though. Although the victim and the victim's family cannot be restored to the status which preceded the murder, at least an execution brings closure to the murderer's crime (and closure to the ordeal for the victim's family) and ensures that the murderer will create no more victims. Everyone keeps putting down the death penalty as a whole, when in fact, if it were done away with, many killers would lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. The family of a victim should not have to live with that, looming over their heads.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Anna [/i] [B] Wait, how old are you??? I thought you were closer to like, 16 rather than 20-something.... [/B][/QUOTE] Nah, I wish I could go back that far, lol. Being almost twenty-one years old, I'm an otaku geezer. On that note, I bet I could find my talking Alf doll if I truly wanted to be pathetic. Then again, I'm not even sure if it still exists in my basement. Years ago, I might have let a certain animal of mine have a go with it.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i] [B]How you managed to find a good, solid underlying message in that crap, I'll never know. Good job, though. :) -Justin [/B][/QUOTE] I studied the subject matter for a year, lol. As I mentioned, the main theme of the movie was the importance of black pride and the resurgence of a Civil Rights movement. Heck, it even covered the dilemma that faces black society in regards to black men having inter racial relationships with white women to move into the middle class. If you think about it, the movie was a parody of stereotypes of both blacks and whites. Think about all it: fried chicken, hot sauce, drugs, afro's, jewelry, etc. And remember, both the black and white people ended up working together.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Delian [/i] [B]That statement is absolutely ridiculous . How can you even compare a mentally retarded person who kills someone with a merciless psychopath. [/B][/QUOTE] Well, Delian I completely agree with you. I do believe, however, that the statement was comparing the utter lack of regard for the value of life on both parties. It is a completely unfair comparison though because one party [I]considers[/I] their actions while the other is less culpable for their acts of violence. Furthermore, as you stated, the act will not free anyone.

Actually, the movie satired racism. [I]That's[/I] why the fried chicken stereotype came into play. In any case, the movie did have some meaningful underlying messages, such as cooperation of races, the importance of black pride and the halt of the Civil Rights movement. The movie didn't convey the message that Caucasians are discriminatory against black america. Rather, corporate white america fears minority groups becoming majority groups and creates devices to stop such movements from happening. ;) Now a movie that is prejudice towards whites, is [I]The Original Kings of Comedy[/I]. I actually changed the channel because the movie disgusted me. It's a shame when a comedian's material grows stale and they rely on nothing but racial low blows.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i] [B]First of all, everyone here isn't exactly politically correct. "Retard" has become more of a slur, and for the sake of those who would be offended by it, I think everyone should watch the way they throw it around. Also, I think several of you should reconsider your opinions, or at least the way you stated them. How would you feel if someone close to you had a handicap like that? Not the same, I'm sure... -Justin [/B][/QUOTE] Well, I was afraid that question would arise over the term "retard." I assure you though, that the term "mentally retarded" was used in the newspapers and Internet articles I read, along with the television news reports that I viewed. The term isn't a negative slur [I]unless[/I] someone comes out and makes it one. I doubt we'll see any ignorance in this thread. Moving on, I don't see where you're going when asking people to reconsider their opinions. It's one thing to know a mentally handicapped individual who leads a respectable life, but it's another to know someone who has deliberately killed someone. I would feel the same way if a proven genius took another human being's life away. What a lot of us are saying, is that something [I]more[/I] has to be plaguing someone who takes another person's life. The value of life is a basic understanding that [I]everyone[/I] should understand. Is it not worthless to keep someone confined, slowly weathering under endless confinement until they die? Obviously, their sanity can crumble even further. [I]That's[/I] cruel if you ask me.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Amphion [/i] [B] I would much rather get rid of scum like that guy then use tax money that could be feeding the poor to keep him fed in jail. [/B][/QUOTE] Actually, it costs more money to execute someone than to keep them alive in jail. State and local governments pay for the prosecution as well as for the defense team--which consists of at least two lawyers and a battery of investigators and experts; much of this money is spent even if the defendent eventually gets a lesser sentence. I've heard that California alone, spends $90 million a year on the death penalty. Anyway, it's important to take into consideration the family of the victim's feelings. Does it hurt less just because a person who killed their loved one isn't considered fully aware of their actions? In this way, the death penalty can affirm life, because if action is not taken, we are signaling a lessened regard for the value of the victim's life. The mentally retarded person surely isn't serving any purpose. If the accused can't recognize the wrongfulness of murder, then they can be of no use in our society. So, in these respects I'm in agreement with Harry.