logo Sign In

JediSage

User Group
Members
Join date
22-Mar-2005
Last activity
10-Jan-2011
Posts
2,109

Post History

Post
#262372
Topic
Dominoes or Pizza Hut?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/262372/action/topic#262372
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Pizza Hut is by far my favorite american fast food franchise, but it has been a while since I last had one, I'd say a full year... I'm trying to control my eating habits so it might be a while since I have another one...


Are there any in Brazil, Ric? What other franchises are there? I always love hearing the differences between the American and "foreign" (to me) versions of fast food, ever since the conversation about the Le Big Mac and the Royale with Cheese in Pulp Fiction.

Post
#262361
Topic
Dominoes or Pizza Hut?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/262361/action/topic#262361
Time
Originally posted by: auximenies
I chose Pizza Hut for the same reason I like McDonald's. People ask "Why do you like McDonald's? They don't taste like real burgers." EXACTLY. If I wanted a burger that tastes like something I could make at home, then I'd make one at home. And I do that from time to time, and they're darn good! But if I want that "fast food goodness", I go to McDonald's.

Pizza Hut to me is the fast food of pizzas. It is tasty, plain and simple. That butter on the bottom of the pan crust with a slight crispiness -- yum! Now don't get me wrong. This isn't "real" pizza. But it is very good for what it is. If I want real pizza, I know where to get that (and it ain't Dominoes or Papa John's) -- or at least I did before I moved to Atlanta!


Well said.

I was craving Pizza Hut so badly today I fired up their store locator and found one bout 4 miles from where I work and did the lunch buffet. All you can eat pizza, breadsticks, and soda for about $8.75 with tax.

Post
#262353
Topic
The Persecution Season is Heating Up
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/262353/action/topic#262353
Time
Another example of the state sanctioned neutrality police in action (and of the state successfully enforcing free speech abridgements on public property, no need to thank me, this one's free)...

In January of 2002 a kindergartener in Saratoga Springs, NY joined hands with two friends at a snack table and said "God is good. God is great. Thank you, God, for my food." The teacher disciplined the child, the principal sent a note home to the parents saying the behavior was inappropriate and would not be permitted. The local school board then issued a press release saying the child would not be allowed to do this again. A suit was filed via a public interest law firm and the child's parents, the case was successfully settled out of court, with the school board acknowledging the child's right to prayer at school so long as it was not "disruptive", and of course refuting that they did anything wrong.

Oh, and before the outcry continues (I'll be composing a response to the last TipTup thread at some point during the Christmas break), here's a piece about the government's ability to intervene in free exercise situations (I find the compelling interest standard a good way to hold the gov's feet to the fire) -

Wiki -
Compelling interest

The Supreme Court under Earl Warren adopted an expansive view of the free exercise clause. The Court required that states have a "compelling interest" in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct as it decided Sherbert v. Verner (1963). The case involved Adele Sherbert, an individual who was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays as required by her Seventh-day Adventist faith. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court ruled that a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face," would be unconstitutional.

The "compelling interest" doctrine became much narrower in 1990, when the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that, as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice, it is constitutional insofar as the free exercise clause is concerned. In 1993, the Supreme Court revisited the free exercise clause when it decided Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. Hialeah had passed an ordinance banning ritual slaughter, a practice central to the Santería religion, while providing exceptions for some practices such as the kosher slaughter of Judaism. Since the ordinance was not "generally applicable," the Court ruled that it was subject to the compelling interest test, which it failed to meet. The Court therefore struck down the City's ordinance.

Also in 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which sought to restore the "compelling interest" standard. In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) the Court struck down the provisions of the Act that forced state and local governments to provide more protections than required by the First Amendment, which the courts enjoy sole power to interpret. According to the court's ruling in Gonzales v. UDV (2006), RFRA remains applicable to federal statutes, which must therefore still meet the "compelling interest" standard in free exercise cases.
Post
#262221
Topic
The Persecution Season is Heating Up
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/262221/action/topic#262221
Time
Today's example:

A fourth-grader from St. Louis, MO was disciplined 3 times for praying quietly over their food during lunch time. The student's mother filed suit and a religious rights public interest law firm handled their case. When the issue came to light the school district insisted the child was disciplined for other issues not related to the prayers, however the law firm testified with four sworn statements from witnesses that the student was not disciplined for any other reason. The case was settled out of court.
Post
#262219
Topic
The Persecution Season is Heating Up
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/262219/action/topic#262219
Time
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: JediSage
I do not advocate representing 1 religion at the expense of another. I just want that one religion to have fair and equal access to public resources and freedoms that most other philosophies and interests (including secularist) enjoy.

Again, where does that stop? Do you know how many different religions you can find in the United States? You really want them all to have “equal” access to public resources? How would you stop a public space from being overrun with hundreds of equally-sized religious displays?

That is where the government's management of the resources in question comes into play. Part of the responsibility that comes with managing them means making sure that group 1 is not holding an event on the same day/time as group 2.

Originally posted by: JediSage
And, just so you know, the “right” that you describe above has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. Putting a nativity scene in a public park, for instance, is not an action protected by the first amendment when those in charge of the park want to prevent a nativity from being there.

So, free exercise rights end where public property begins?

Hardly. Good Lord. Sid you even read the above-quoted paragraph before trying to reply to it?

I was informing you that the free exercise of religion is completely unaffected by the ways our public officials decide to manage public property. If a town allows a nativity while preventing an Islamic display, the free-exercise rights of Muslims are not being offended. If that same town then decides to allow an Islamic display and prevent the nativity, the free-exercise rights of Christians are not affected.

How are they NOT offended? Religious displays/gatherings are constitutionally protected speech, and have been since the day the Bill of Rights was passed. George Washington declared a national day of prayer and thanksgiving the day after it was enacted into law.


Originally posted by: JediSage
The word "public" carries with it certain cannotations, meaning that the "public" may use it within certain guidelines, ie: so long as they don't disturb the peace, have people walking around naked, murder, assault anyone, perform human sacrifices, whatever.

That’s not true at all. The government has every prerogative to limit access to public property in any way that it deems fit. If it wants to charge a fee for people to gain access to a public park, it can do that.

No argument. Free speech is not at issue here.

If it wants to allow a marathon supporting cancer research while banning a KKK rally in those same streets, it is capable of making that decision without offending any rights or principles.


100% disagreement. A KKK rally is by definition a free speech exercise, repugnant as it may be, and they have every right to freely assemble under the First Amendment so long as the assembly is peaceable. Yes, the governing authority can levy a fee, run them through mountains of paperwork, etc; but in the end the authority in question cannot legally deny them the right to assemble on public property.

Government makes decisions with unfair preferences all of the time. It’s the way a society works. We provide economic incentives to encourage people to serve in the military while ignoring other roles. We currently give tax-breaks to heterosexual, married couples because our society believes that such families are benefit to our nation more than other kinds of families would be. We often preserve the state of our environment by preventing people from utilizing private resources in any way they would wish. Each of these decisions naturally discriminates against their alternatives.


None of the examples you cite is a First Amendment issue.

(I’ve studied the issue for many years).


As have I.

Though I believe it can be safe for us to say that while common access should be equal and fair, uncommon access should not. If we decide to give an unusual amount of access to one group (like in the case of a nativity in front of a town hall), there are no “rights” requiring us to give that exact same level of unusual access to every other possible group that might want it. Tell me where the constitution says otherwise.


Free exercise rights are not a question of commonality vs uncommonality, but since you brought it up, how do you define uncommon access in light of the fact that displays of this type were never an issue until relatively recently?

Our country has been discriminating in the favor of Christianity since it was founded. Even Thomas Jefferson, perhaps the least religious founding father, oversaw many government actions that actually endorsed Christianity with our federal government! So long as private religious observances were not hindered by an action, this kind of public favoritism was totally compatible with the constitution as far as our founding fathers were concerned.


You lost me here.

Originally posted by: JediSage
We now read the 1st amendment as covering everything from dung-covered pictures of Catholic religious icons and art exhibits with human cadavers that MUST be protected, yet a nativity scene is bad.

That kind of speech is not to be protected by the government as it relates to public property or public funding. If we decide to prevent such exhibits from getting government assistance, then we have every right to do so.


Check out the story about the dung covered portrait of Mary in NYC a few years back...

Originally posted by: JediSage
We're not talking about inventing "new" rights. We're talking about protecting existing rights that were respected for over 150 years, that have, in the past few decades, been taken from us in whole or by piece. If "the country" wants to change it then they should do it via amending the First Amendment, not through judicial fiat.

The “right” to put a religious display on public property when the proper authority is apposed to that action is not a right that has ever existed in our country. Sorry.


Oh well, then case closed. LMAO.

ANYWAY, you are sorely misinformed about this. "Sorry".

The United States is what's called a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. This means that the power of the government and it's people are curbed by laws. The notion that the government can deny rights to it's citizens (rights that are explicitly protected in the country's founding documents and the writings of it's founders) places waaaay too much power in the government's hands and paves the way to even more totalitarianism than we're already dealing with.
Post
#262039
Topic
The Persecution Season is Heating Up
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/262039/action/topic#262039
Time
Originally posted by: Tiptup

Originally posted by: JediSage

We're believing that it should not be prevented from being represented, displayed, or talked about in a public forum, and that the people doing it should have their free exercise rights protected.

Then where does that logic stop, exactly? Does every last, little, stupid religion in this country get its own display of the same size? Should a public forum accommodate anything and everything the "public" may want to place there? No restrictions whatsoever?

Should the Christians of America simply "go away" because 1 group feels under-represented or offended? I do not advocate representing 1 religion at the expense of another. I just want that one religion to have fair and equal access to public resources and freedoms that most other philosophies and interests (including secularist) enjoy.

And, just so you know, the “right” that you describe above has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion. Putting a nativity scene in a public park, for instance, is not an action protected by the first amendment when those in charge of the park want to prevent a nativity from being there.


So, free exercise rights end where public property begins?

The word "public" carries with it certain cannotations, meaning that the "public" may use it within certain guidelines, ie: so long as they don't disturb the peace, have people walking around naked, murder, assault anyone, perform human sacrifices, whatever. We now read the 1st amendment as covering everything from dung-covered pictures of Catholic religious icons and art exhibits with human cadavers that MUST be protected, yet a nativity scene is bad.


Originally posted by: JediSage

If the "people in authority" thought it was a good idea to stone people for over-due parking tickets it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing.


A country is not allowed to dictate its own policies or determine its own laws in your mind? Should we simply invent new "rights" in response to each decision that you happen to personally disagree with?


We're not talking about inventing "new" rights. We're talking about protecting existing rights that were respected for over 150 years, that have, in the past few decades, been taken from us in whole or by piece. If "the country" wants to change it then they should do it via amending the First Amendment, not through judicial fiat.
Post
#262010
Topic
The Persecution Season is Heating Up
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/262010/action/topic#262010
Time
Originally posted by: Tiptup
Are we believing that Christmas should be represented in the culture around us because it is the dominant religion in the country?

Or, do we believe that Christmas should be represented in the culture around us because it has some "right" to be displayed, even when people in authority are apposed to that?


We're believing that it should not be prevented from being represented, displayed, or talked about in a public forum, and that the people doing it should have their free exercise rights protected. If the "people in authority" thought it was a good idea to stone people for over-due parking tickets it wouldn't necessarily be a good thing.

Post
#261953
Topic
BSG
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261953/action/topic#261953
Time
Originally posted by: crazyrabbits
Originally posted by: JediSage
Will she ram face-first into a glass wall again? That was a riot.


No joke. My brother laughed himself silly watching her run into the wall and go crazy. Good times.


Indeed. I would pull up a chair, order a pizza, and pop a brew while I watched that going on. Like when someone holds their breath. It's like, go ahead, you'll pass out eventually.

Post
#261891
Topic
BSG
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261891/action/topic#261891
Time
Great ep this week.

**SPOILERS FOR THE EYE OF JUPITER**





It will be interesting to see the dynamic between Lucy Lawless/Baltar vs Number 6 "Caprica" in the coming episodes. Will she still be inside his head? Or will she leave him?

Also, the results of Sharon's discovery about Hera still being alive will be fun to watch. Will she ram face-first into a glass wall again? That was a riot.

Incidentally, Number 6 "Caprica" will be appearing in Playboy next month...for those who only read the articles.
Post
#261811
Topic
Live Free Or Die Hard
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261811/action/topic#261811
Time
Originally posted by: Wesyeed
damn sorry to spoil the party... I hated it. It looks too much like a generic action flick with michael bay-ish videogame camera angles and that just doesn't give me that die hard feeling. And I hate the kid in the car who's acting EXACTLY the same way he acted in that Herbie fully loaded movie when he was in the car driving around with lindsay Lohan... not a good sign. It's like they're not even trying if they pull inspiration from a Lohan disney movie for a scene... so I see nothing really good in this trailer except Willis . I still have hope for the film and would love it to be a great die hard movie though.



I agree on this. The original was classic on many levels, the second one was awful, the third was good. I'm doubtful they can capture the magic again and it looks waaaay too generic.
Post
#261535
Topic
The Persecution Season is Heating Up
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261535/action/topic#261535
Time
In observation of Christmas, I'm going to try to post some examples of the types of things happening in America with regards to this argument. My intention is not to start a flame war, but to inform. I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs of any these instances. I'll try to put something here every day through Christmas day.

Here's today's example:

"And make no mistake, the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court." - U.S. District judge, Southern District of Texas 1995.

This was a case regarding prayer before a school graduation. The judge applied this ruling to all forms of prayer (all religions), but a Christian prayer was at issue, and this is a clear violation of the free exercise clause.
Post
#261373
Topic
Comics Fans
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261373/action/topic#261373
Time
*bump*

Wow, this one has gone by the way side. Time to bring it back.

Anyone else as torqued as I am with how screwed up the Spider-Man/Civil War arc is? Part of it is told in ASM, another part in CW #5, more in the next ASM, then part in CW #6 which has yet to be released. I love the Civil War story but please! Get it straight or give us a chronology.
Post
#261296
Topic
BSG
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261296/action/topic#261296
Time
Ahhh, GOD. I forgot about the prostitute one. I stand corrected there. LOL.

The cylon blood-cure I did not think was too outrageous, and could be seen coming I think. Ron Moore is from the Star Trek spin-off school, after all, where they converted kitchen utensils into shuttlecraft on a weekly basis.
Post
#261173
Topic
Video Games - a general discussion thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261173/action/topic#261173
Time
Originally posted by: Number20
JediSage is correct. PC gaming is hard because you have to be constantly upgrading to the latest and greatest video card or some other peice of hardware the moment it comes out or you are 'out of date' and can't play the latest games. It seems to have gotten much more ridiclous in the last few years. The games I play on the PC are mostly older games, such as MS flight Simulator, Red Baron 3D, and similar stuff. But I think one of the major reasons consoles have held as strongly as they have, is because it is much cheaper to have a console than a gaming PC and keeping the gaming PC up to date.


I've actually thought over the last few years that the pc upgrade cycle had slowed down. I haven't bought a new pc since...01, I believe. Only thing I've bought since then was a new vid card, but it wasn't keeping me from gaming on my older stuff. That being said, I can't come close to playing QIV or HL2 and other stuff that's out.

Post
#261159
Topic
Video Games - a general discussion thread
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/261159/action/topic#261159
Time
Originally posted by: Luke Skywalker
so many things to talk about in this thread....
i will do them one by one because there are so many things ive wanted to discuss lately and this is definatly the time to do it.

the point here is that no console is better than the other. anyone who says that is a ignorant fanboy. each system has their pros and cons and no one can say different. saying that i would like to point out a couple corrections made by people in this thread..

No, statements like this are ignorant. The market decides which console is better. Yes, they all have pros and cons, but if one weren't "better" than the other then the Sega Dreamcast wouldn't have tanked.

1) for the person who was talking about grand turismo costing money... false. sony has since abandoned that idea. they as well as everyone else realized it wouldn't fly and has since cancelled GT:HD and are putting all their work into GT 5. it was a stupid idea to begin with and a very similar situation happened during the ps2 version of GT 3. so before people continue to try and put sony down, this is false.

You're obviously taking what I said out of context, deliberately or not. What I said was that I saw this reported on X-Play. I did not say it would now and forever be the truth. I understand better than most that in technology businesses things change rapidly.

3) someone said pc gaming was dying. this is the biggest joke of a statement if i've ever seen one. but from coming from someone who may not play pc games its not a surprise. when you stick to a specific format you tend to lose grasp on anything outside of your own format. its happens with everyone. but if you look at a game like crysis for example. crysis has so far cost over 27 million dollars to develope. are you telling me that they're putting all this money into a dying format? they're not stupid, they want to make money. take a look at the majority of online games such as Counterstrike, Battlefield 2, or how bout MMORPG's like World of Warcraft or Everquest. World of Warcraft alone has over 7 million subscribers. Sims games are dominating the female market in games (which is impressive because more and more females are becoming gamers.) the fact of the matter is PC gaming is not dying and will never die. as long as games are made on computers they will always have a market.


Again you're making statements with no basis in fact. If you'd actually quoted my previous posts about PC gaming these errors would have been apparent, but since you chose not to I'll refresh your memory:

I've been playing games on PC since the original shareware Doom, and before that I played text-based RPGs on the Vic 20 and C64, Zork on the Apple IIe, custom games on my Tandy Sinclair, so right off the bat your accusation that I may not play pc games is ludicrous. Take a walk into an EB or Gamestop, look at the shelf-space devoted to Console games vs pc games. It's another situation of market forces at work. Is Gears of War being ported to PC? What about Vice City Stories? Bully? Justice League Heroes? God of War? Mortal Kombat?

Is the pc market completely gone? No. Is that what I said? NO. I said that it was DYING.

i hear people say this all the time. "PC's cost too much to maintain if you want to play games on them"

this is about the worst possible excuse in the world. if you dont want to play games with all the bells and whistles. guess what? you dont have to. you can still play a game on low graphics or medium graphics and get the same amount of enjoyment out of it. will better graphics give you a better experience. in some cases yes, probably (depending on who you are i suppose.) but there is no rule that says you must upgrade. that is just a pissing competition between pc gamers which has been around forever. just as it is with the ps3 and xbox 360. fans of the two will be bitching at eachother for years trying to one up the other. and its so old.


Well, let's see, if I have a 1.8ghz CPU on my pc, and Crysis requires a dual-core 3.2ghz minimum, what are my options? A motherboard can only support so much CPU before it needs to be replaced. Then you're still stuck with bottlenecks in the BUS and misc other issues. So, yeah, I can throw a new MB, memory, VID card, etc into my system, but this is being forced to upgrade. This is a fact. The games will not run. Not sure how you turn that into a pissing contest.

the point im making in this regard is that gaming computers are not expensive. they are only expensive if you want them to be.
you could pick up a video card today for about the same amount of money as an xbox 360 and be able to play games that look just as good as the xbox. if a game comes out in a couple years, you can still play it on medium or low settings and have it look like the xbox 360 or (if your a graphics whore) you can spend more money to play a game that will look better than the xbox 360. the whole point is the pc has never been more expensive than a console. if anything its been cheaper.


This is even more ludicrous. I just built a bare-bones gaming pc for my parents (my father plays Call of Duty) with 1GB RAM and a 256MB Video Card for over $700 with no monitor. Until this recent generation of consoles I'd like you to show me an XBOX, PS, or Nintendo system that cost that much. And anyone spending that much and not getting a pc out of it is lost. There's not a console in the world at this time that will give what a pc is giving, and I don't need to purchase a high-def tv to get hi-def graphics from my pc.

I don't think one must sacrifice graphics to have good game play. I think Unreal Tournament 04 for PC is one of the best gaming experiences I've ever had because of the variety of play and also the scalability of the graphics. Far Cry was also exceptional, with some of the best graphics I've ever seen in addition to the most difficult A.I. I've ever played. Standard tvs are not capable of the same resolution of a pc monitor, and that's why I feel that the console experience is somewhat lessened for me because the lack of graphics depth. However, there are some console games that just blew me away, like Resident Evil 4, Hulk Ultimate Destruction, and some of the WWE games. The Sega Genesis was a great experience for me, especially with the sports games (so I'm not only a Nintendo fanboy).