Jump to content

Jimmy42Jack0

Members
  • Posts

    4,809
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jimmy42Jack0

  1. baron von steuben was as queer as a 3 dollar bill...and trained the "troops" at saratoga with General Washington...if not for him...we arent a country...simple as that...so when i hear people say that DADT shouldnt be repealed...or that gays shouldnt be in the military...they really should swallow some history instead of the non-sense they hear at church That's actually not a part of history because the evidence is inconclusive. So in essence it isn't any more fact than the 'nonsense they hear at church.' Just sayin'... -_- uh...its a historical fact...not faith based discrimination...big difference
  2. OpFor is common in games like this... they did it in Call of Duty MW and MW2. It's implied, but not actual. it seems like a technicality difference to me...everyone knows what you are talking about...i dont see the big deal...but it would be curious to see how the military feels
  3. baron von steuben was as queer as a 3 dollar bill...and trained the "troops" at saratoga with General Washington...if not for him...we arent a country...simple as that...so when i hear people say that DADT shouldnt be repealed...or that gays shouldnt be in the military...they really should swallow some history instead of the non-sense they hear at church
  4. just saw that EA is removing the "taliban" name from the multiplayer aspect of the game...the other side will now be know as opfor(opposition force) i wonder if it will have any impact on bases selling the game?
  5. immature?...are you obtuse or just not paying attention? teenagers are going to engage in sexual activity with or without their parents blessing and its better that they have all the information available to them being ignorant as to a topic does not make it go away no matter how much religious groups would hope they would(not saying you are religious) but to side step the topic, to push sex back in the closet is doing a great disservice to future generations and i for one am i tired of progress being put on the back burner for fear of hurting someone's feelings...kids deserve the truth and anything less is unacceptable
  6. As long as parents keep the right to excuse their child from the class, then sure. This is a devil's advocate post: Why should the parents be allowed to stop their children from something so important? When I was a kid my mom couldn't go down with a letter and say "No science for my kid, we don't believe he should learn your scientific lies". Why should this be any different? Because they're their children, not the state's. It's a great thing about our government, the fact that your children belong to you and not the government and you're given the choice to raise them however you wish (within reason, of course - you can't teach your kid to murder people.). Sex Education is not an academic discipline, like Science, English, Math, etc. and the controversial aspects of Sex Ed are things that have a great impact on a child's development into an adult. There are also many grey areas, where proper courses of action are just a matter of opinion (abstinence vs safe sex, etc.). Unlike academic subjects, whose purposes are to either prepare a student for life after school, or to culture them, Sex Education is closer to morality and religion, things that a place of academics has no right to teach without consent because, as I said previously, the child belongs to the parent and not the state. i believe it should be enforced at the public school level you want your kid married, barefoot and prego by age 16? then go to a private, religious school....but in a public school, the kids deserve the truth ...If we were living in fascist Italy. what??!?!?!?!?!?!?!! sex education could fall under a million different topics in school (bio, chem, psych, etc.) and i believe looking at each of those angle is important to understanding human sexuality... with sex education, comes the freedom and responsibility to enjoy it...make it mandatory and if you or your kid doesnt like it...go to a private school but with that education, you could lessen the opposition to gay/bi/lesbian/trans gender lifestyles that are becoming more and more popular in this country
  7. i believe it should be enforced at the public school level you want your kid married, barefoot and prego by age 16? then go to a private, religious school....but in a public school, the kids deserve the truth
  8. Which is why I'm not complaining, but still it's kinda lame. It's as if the millitary is trying to send a message to the game producers... as if they did something wrong. But none the less, at least it's still ownable . exactly...games are a work of art on several different mediums....they shouldnt be punished for giving the people what they want....and in this case...its killing fake people
  9. Good. Really? I mean personally I believe it's not a matter of what video game... if they're allowed video games they should be allowed any game. But I mean, fair enough that they're still allowed to bring it on base... but still the main storyline is from the point of Americans. I mean... why isnt Call of Duty MW2 banned from sellers? "technically" you're not the taliban but you sure are a bunch of terrorists running around Pakistan and Afghanistan... I think it's kind of silly but at least it wasnt a full ban. i believe video games are a form of entertainment not entirely different than books, movies, etc. and if they dont ban books dealing with the taliban or movies such as "the kingdom" than they are creating a double standard here plus...the military is cutting into what could be a good deal of money to the various base exchanges and gamestops that could be profiting from this game's sale personally...i think people need to not be so sensitive and i have plenty of military in my family
  10. More Fox News bashing. UGH! it doesnt get bashed nearly enough for the spreading of misinformation...or did those death panels kick in yet? It is completely justified to bash Fox News for biased opinions...but it would be hypocritical if you didn't also bash a station like MSNBC for biased liberal opinions. sure except i dont watch MSNBC either...nor do they relentlessly attack conservatives only or claim the president is a racist fox news is only a small step above the enquirer and anyone who believes differently either must believe the sky is falling on cloudy days or actually works for the damn network they also have no quams whatsoever about getting spoon fed news from rupert(english) and the saudi princes...and call me crazy...but id rather have an american take on the news and not what some foreigner wants me to think what the news is Penguino already said just about everything I was about to say, but to add to that, only Glenn Beck called Obama a racist, and he said that he regrets calling him that. No one claims that Fox News isn't tilted to the right, but at least they have some commentators who don't have much of a bias (or possibly even lean to the left), such as Geraldo, Shepard Smith, Greta Van Susteren, etc. On MSNBC, their whole lineup is full of liberals, and the only conservatives they bring on their station are guys like Pat Buchanan. The only reason why you hear more Fox News bashing is because they are the only station that has a conservative bias and their ratings are higher than just about every other news station's combined. yeah, great....penguino is also a tea party nut job so his opinion is pretty far down on the totem pole for me ill take your word for it about msnbc...i just dont watch cable news as opinions seem to matter as much as the actual news does but fox news itself has the slogan of fair and balanced...so apparently they think they are reporting the news after all and are more than just entertaining also...it makes alot sense that they have the highest ratings being that A. most people in this country that collect government assistance are white people and B. live in the bible belt of this country which C. means they generally vote republican anyways and D. means they love to hear a good story that is no more based in reality than Jonah getting eaten by a whale
  11. More Fox News bashing. UGH! it doesnt get bashed nearly enough for the spreading of misinformation...or did those death panels kick in yet? It is completely justified to bash Fox News for biased opinions...but it would be hypocritical if you didn't also bash a station like MSNBC for biased liberal opinions. sure except i dont watch MSNBC either...nor do they relentlessly attack conservatives only or claim the president is a racist fox news is only a small step above the enquirer and anyone who believes differently either must believe the sky is falling on cloudy days or actually works for the damn network they also have no quams whatsoever about getting spoon fed news from rupert(english) and the saudi princes...and call me crazy...but id rather have an american take on the news and not what some foreigner wants me to think what the news is
  12. And now all of the sudden oil rigs are blowing up everywhere? Or is this just the same shark attack nonsense, where it happens all the time, but now that it makes big news the media eats it all up? You mean like the Earthquake nonsense? If by that you mean every single bit of seismic activity must be reported on CNN, then yes . so are earthquakes not news/not interesting?
  13. More Fox News bashing. UGH! it doesnt get bashed nearly enough for the spreading of misinformation...or did those death panels kick in yet?
  14. because their standard is ridiculous to begin with, nevermind the legal side of the argument which would nothing short of a complete mockery in any court room in this country in the united states of america, you can wear whatever you want, whenever you want...within reason of course but then again...im sensing someone who believes in the liberal media conspiracy, correct? Excuse me? What standard are you even talking of? and what "Liberal media conspiracy" are you talking about? I never said any of that, nor do I believe in any conspiracies. I just spoke my mind right there. That is all. And to the bolded point, what? You have freedom of speech. Freedom of expression. Freedom. But freedoms do not apply to everything. With such freedoms come great responsibility. There is still law in this land, which must be followed. Public education might be a right and not a priviledge, but attending Prom is most certainly a priviledge, and if/when rules are created for it, they must be followed. Your freedom goes in line with your rights. Nobody is telling this girl she cant wear a tuxedo at home, or wherever the hell she wants in America in public, or here, or there, or whatever. But a prom is a private event, end of story. a standard that is acceptable by all...there is nothing not even remotely close to wrong with her wearing a tuxedo except to people who have something against her sexuality as for the liberal media conspiracy...just in the little that ive read of what you posted...you seem to be the type who watches faux news 24-7-365 and believe every word spoken by the leader of fair and balanced...is that about right? as for prom...prom is most certainly a public event...open to the entire public? no...of course not...but you can still go...its not off limits...this is mearly a school trying to dictate what is and isnt acceptable and in america...we can wear whatever we want, whenever we want within reason Yes, you caught me. I watch Fox News all the time. Actually, it's quite the opposite. I love how if I dont conform to the typical Liberal views I am immediately categorized on the other end. Oh, freedom to all, and to all a good night. I hate leftists. But I most certainly hate rightists as well. But really, nice try on reading me. You failed miserably. No, it is not a public event. Maybe you should go to a high school and see what's up with that. It might be a publicly sponsored event, but it's a pay-to-attend event. What do you think makes something private versus public? Public establishments are funded by our government. Private establishments, such as... oh... UM... pay for their expenses through the attendees. Public institutions... such as... UCF... get most of their funding through the state. So a public school... gets state money... but when the students themselves cover the full cost of the prom, it is a private event. A prom is not something that the school pays for. It's not something that is guaranteed by the school, state, or law. fine, you dont watch fox news...but you are definitely taking the bigot end of this argument even if its a private event, her rights are guarenteed by law and there is no ifs, ands of buts about this because due process of law is aplicable everywhere in this country and its sovereign territories...meaning...she can wear whatever she wants, whenever she wants... a lawyer would have a field day with this
  15. http://www.boston.com/yourtown/peabody/articles/2010/08/22/once_troubled_peabody_phenom_allison_sees_big_league_career_on_horizon/?p1=News_links good read...i hope he continues to stay clean and maybe make it to the bigs
  16. because their standard is ridiculous to begin with, nevermind the legal side of the argument which would nothing short of a complete mockery in any court room in this country in the united states of america, you can wear whatever you want, whenever you want...within reason of course but then again...im sensing someone who believes in the liberal media conspiracy, correct? Excuse me? What standard are you even talking of? and what "Liberal media conspiracy" are you talking about? I never said any of that, nor do I believe in any conspiracies. I just spoke my mind right there. That is all. And to the bolded point, what? You have freedom of speech. Freedom of expression. Freedom. But freedoms do not apply to everything. With such freedoms come great responsibility. There is still law in this land, which must be followed. Public education might be a right and not a priviledge, but attending Prom is most certainly a priviledge, and if/when rules are created for it, they must be followed. Your freedom goes in line with your rights. Nobody is telling this girl she cant wear a tuxedo at home, or wherever the hell she wants in America in public, or here, or there, or whatever. But a prom is a private event, end of story. a standard that is acceptable by all...there is nothing not even remotely close to wrong with her wearing a tuxedo except to people who have something against her sexuality as for the liberal media conspiracy...just in the little that ive read of what you posted...you seem to be the type who watches faux news 24-7-365 and believe every word spoken by the leader of fair and balanced...is that about right? as for prom...prom is most certainly a public event...open to the entire public? no...of course not...but you can still go...its not off limits...this is mearly a school trying to dictate what is and isnt acceptable and in america...we can wear whatever we want, whenever we want within reason
  17. Perhaps if that's what you define to be an intelligent opinion. I'd call that being articulate. It's as if someone posted this article and wrote "just cuz she got some tits and a puss dont mean she needa act and be llke the girls.' I woouldn't go as far as to say that isn't an intelligent opinion just because it's coarse and insensitive - the rationale behind it could still be sensible. With that said, the opinion that the OP is defending could still be intelligent; he just didn't do a very good job of communicating it. First of all, there was absolutely no attempt made at articulateness. And there is a certain decorum required by what I consider "intelligent" discussion. But I suppose that is a semantics issue. I also read his post for content. It's still not intelligent. He gives no reason why she can't where a tux except that "she can't". If she's a Lesbian, she's got no right to pretend she's a man. If she's trans-gender or trans-sexual, then that's a different story. This would be an absurd standard. The school has no right to this information, of course. What do you mean? I completely disagree. She wants to wear a tuxedo because she is a tomboy. She likes the style of dressing as a man. Yeah, if you want to be liberal in students decision-making, that's fine. But there is still a dresscode, and that doesnt make exceptions for 'special' people. She is equal to the rest of us. This would be equivalent to a straight person who just so happens to be a crossdresser wanting to wear the opposite sex's clothes. She calls herself a lesbian. Im sure she knows the difference between a transgender (someone who appears as or wishes to be considered the opposite sex). She likes girls, that doesnt make her a boy. She can dress like a boy in public, fine, but this would be the only way I would see it fair for a woman to be wearing man's clothing. Do remember, a transgender has not had an operation, that would be a transexual. She's a lesbian, end of story. What the hell do you think would happen if a straight person tried to do this just out of his or her own interest? Being equal to all sorts of races, ethnicities, religions, and sexual orientations does not mean you need to treat them differently or with any more of a priveledge just because they get less of a priveledge elsewhere. Reverse prejudice is equivalent to prejudice in its own right. We are all equal, the same, no difference, yada yada. I dont know who said it... but I completely agree. This is what you'd like to call a media whore/cash-in opportunity. She isnt standing for what she believes in, she's making a scene and the media is eating it up. because their standard is ridiculous to begin with, nevermind the legal side of the argument which would nothing short of a complete mockery in any court room in this country in the united states of america, you can wear whatever you want, whenever you want...within reason of course but then again...im sensing someone who believes in the liberal media conspiracy, correct?
  18. legislating taste has and will always a very, very slippery slope as long as the attire doesnt have anything crazily offensive (nazi, swears, nudity, etc. etc.)...she should be able to wear whatever the hell she pleases
  19. wow, no kidding...good call i like this deal alot...i believe more consistency to our offense is coming...i mean hanley cant slump for forever...if the starters continue the way they have pitched recently at least the pen will have rest and ohman should give valuable innings and prove tough on the lefties...if we make a run...it starts now...against more tough competition go fish!
  20. the timing of this question was impeccable...im not sure if i should pay for it as i already have extra innings in the house...meh...maybe next year...
  21. i like the deal...he offers lefty versatility for us and bah...all american league fans think the phils are a lock...i think that philadelphia teams should never be lock for anything other than to be booed quite frequently by the fans of the city of brotherly love So do most National League fans. And judging by the Prediction thread, so do most Marlin fans. yeah, you're right...i guess im just a sucker for the underdog...and i believe things are going to go right for the marlins this year and the things that have broke the phils way in the past two years wont this year...call it a hunch...but i smell a teal october and ill be damned if any phillie takes that from my fish...who's with me? ooooooo raaaaa m-f's!
  22. i like the deal...he offers lefty versatility for us and bah...all american league fans think the phils are a lock...i think that philadelphia teams should never be lock for anything other than to be booed quite frequently by the fans of the city of brotherly love
  23. im not sure who i believe but the first article was more convincing to me...but then again, i also believe that gaby should be our starting 1st baseman so my bias my fuel how i looked at the articles question though...if jimenez makes the initial 25 man squad...could he be moved down later in the year or would he be returned and if so, would we get any compensation from houston? or did we essentially trade lindstrom for nothing if jimenez doesnt make the team?
  24. i picked up the show yesterday and wow...game is orgasmic if you are a baseball fan...and if you are reading this...i would assume you are...so for those who dont own a ps3 but have a hdtv and 500 extra bucks lying around...i suggest picking one up as IMO, its a system seller(and this is coming from a diehard xbox fan who obviously has both systems)(oh and i have the slim version so i was unaffected by that PSN non-sense a couple days ago) anyways...i the individual player ratings are generated from the 3 previous years of stats to go from which is why jose reyes is overrated the way he is and the same for various other players while alot of other players are underrated because they have only recently come into their own...unfortunetly the potential meter they use seems to be kind of out of whack because it seems that good players cannot/wont become elite players through years on the franchise mode but that seems like something that is pretty easy to fix and many on the operationsports.com website forums who have contact with the developers have already griped about it anyways, thats a good site and if you play with the minor league teams too and want to have current rosters with those teams, there are several members who do alot of work in putting together full minors rosters as for myself with the game, its the first time ive really played their brand of baseball game before and getting used to the timing of hitting has been monumently difficult for me...needless to say, curveball and xyz marlins player is walking back to the bench pissed off...i really like the pitching because even if you use their meter and nail it perfectly, there is still a little variance in where the pitch goes...IMO, they mimicked the presentation of a real tv broadcast just about as well as you could imagine and with the amazing graphical ability of these next generation consoles...its hard to tell the difference between real and video game...as for the fielding and running...again...im still getting used to it but it looks like they have a solid system for both and "feel" very solid id have to play alot more games to say its better than MVP 05' overall...but needless to say...it was 60 dollars well spent
  25. so ok, im a total video game dork and i can admit that...as you can see...i have a xbox 360 and i know that it upscales game from their native resolution to go into 1080i on my tv... i recently discovered on PS3 that it downscales the games depending on their native resolution...i figure out that by getting rid of the 720p check box in the settings, that it will play my other games(cod, uncharted, ac2 and the saboteur) in 1080i but when playing heavy rain that it downscales it to 480i and it looks quite bad so my question is, is there a way to get it the settings to it only recognizes all my games in 1080i or do i have to change the settings every time i play heavy rain? thanks and beware of future stupid questions regarding this topic as im a video game geek, not a video geek
×
×
  • Create New...