logo Sign In

JediSage

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

Post History

Post
#131434
Topic
New Site Request
Time
Hi Jay.

Don't know if this is something you've considered, but I've run into problems in the past with trying to PM someone, only to be told by the system that I have too many PMs already, which are in actuality only Forum Notifiers. Is there a way to either wipe out this issue in the new boards, or perhaps to make the system realize the difference between true PMs and Notifiers? Or am I just not realizing something simple?

Thx.

JS
Post
#131429
Topic
Jedikev?
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: Bossk
Quote

Originally posted by: greencapt
Jedikev!

"Welcome back,
Your dreams were your ticket out.

Welcome back,
To that same old place that you laughed about.

Well the names have all changed since you hung around,
But those dreams have remained and they're turned around. "

or something like that...


Kev's last name is Kotter?!?!?


What about Horshack?
Post
#131375
Topic
For Conspiracy Theorists
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: Shimraa
dont really se whats wrong with a one world government, man things would be so much more organized, and disputes could be handled so much better, places that need aid would get it in a much more efficent way and laws would be the same everywhere. in my mind a one world gov just makes good sense. also the goals of man could be finally focused and ht ebest minds would be workin together with huge support globally. no through universities and grants and so on.


I think a representative Republic (not a democracy) one-world government would be a good thing. However, the current methodology is a joke, given that some of the worst human rights abusers on the planet are being given a voice in it. Also, it has to be truly representative, meaning NGOs should not be in power, and all leaders should be held directly accountable via elections.

I think the whole "...laws would be the same everywhere" theory would be scary unless done right, ie: laws that protect individual liberty, not sacrifice freedom to the collective. For instance, the American right to keep and bear arms. I'm not willing to give that up for the "collective good", in spite of a vast movement at the UN to remove the right to private gun ownership. Canada is going along with it, I'm sad to say.

Post
#131161
Topic
Comics Fans
Time
Haven't read it yet. I'm just getting back into collecting for real, so I'm compiling a looooong list of stuff I've got to get. Right now I'm getting caught up on Sandman, which I may let go for a while to get some other stuff, like rebuilding my old Flash collection, or catching up on Straczynski's Spider-Man run or Sin City.
Post
#131258
Topic
For Conspiracy Theorists
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: Shimraa
ok so wahts this group bilubluere(sp) are they like a shadow UN or something or what.


It's been widely speculated that the UN is merely a tool to bring about global socialist government. There are many groups that have many different names that are involved, however the goal is the same as stated previously. A good book on the subject is The Creature from Jekyl Island, which talks about how the bankers and politicians have always been in league to try to push for a quasi-socialist world government, that would guarantee profits, among other things. It's backed up by quite a lot of information, and makes some interesting predictions, including regionalization as a prelude to globalization, ie: the EU, soon to be followed by the North American "free trade" zone, which will eliminate the economic borders first, followed by the installation of non-representative NGO (non-governmental organizations) in positions of power.

Post
#131160
Topic
Objective Truth
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote

Originally posted by: JediSage
As someone said above, the leftist dominated media is good at force feeding the message: Whatever feels good is good for the person doing it, if you don't accept it and believe it to be right you're evil.


Hmnn... don't you think you're exagerating a little bit? I don't think the media enforces this particular dogma. Take the whole fast food issue, for example. The media is highly opposed to bad eating habbits, which is supposed to FEEL good but is not exactly a good thing. And I think no political consideration or opinion is related to that kind of thought.

Now, I only mentioned one crude example out of my mind right now, can you mention one to prove your statement?


Ric: I got this today and it kind of touches on this issue. I get a daily email from the site, Breakpoint.org

"Words Matter
Combating Orwellian Distortions

August 16, 2005

The other day I was watching a news segment about British leader Tony Blair's decision to come down hard on those who engage in the kind of hate speech that incites violence. The program then ran videotape of a radical Islamic cleric standing on a London street corner. If Britain did not get out of Iraq, he warned, the streets of London would run with blood. The show then cut to scenes of the July 7 terrorist bombings, when the streets did indeed run with blood. It was a grim reminder of the link between violent talk and violent actions—Blair was right to throw the cleric out.

But a few minutes later I turned the channel and watched a segment on gay "marriage." A gay activist was loudly accusing those who speak out against gay "marriage" of engaging in hate speech—as if it were just like the Muslim Terrorists.

So-called "hate speech"—that is, any criticism of the gay agenda—has been banned on many college campuses, so say the activists, because it will incite violence. But will it?

Come on, who is running most of the AIDS hospices in America? That's right: It's Christians. "Hate filled bigots"? Hardly.

In reality, redefining Christian arguments as hate speech and bigotry is often an attempt to shame and silence us. And all too often, this strategy works. It not only stifles legitimate opposition; it changes the way people think about controversial moral and political issues.

Before his tragic death in Iraq, reporter Steven Vincent wrote in National Review Online that "Words matter. Words convey moral clarity. Without moral clarity, we will not succeed in Iraq. That is why the terms the press uses to cover this conflict are so vital."

For example, Vincent wrote, mainstream media outlets like the New York Times use terms like "insurgents" and "guerrillas" to describe the Sunni Triangle gunmen "as if these murderous thugs represented a traditional national liberation movement." But when the Times reports on similar groups of killers operating in Latin American countries, "they [often] utilize the phrase ‘paramilitary death squads.' Same murderers, different designations." This is important, Vincent added, because words like "insurgents" and "guerillas" have claims on our sympathies that "paramilitaries" lack.

Similarly, reporters claim the U.S.-led coalition "invaded Iraq and "occupies" it today. "We could more precisely claim," Vincent says, "that the allies liberated the country and are currently reconstructing it … These definitions reflect the nobility of our effort in Iraq." Anyone who cares about success in our struggle against Islamofacism, or upholds principles of moral clarity and lucid thought—should combat such Orwellian distortions of our language."

Vincent was absolutely right, and his warning against the abuses of language should be heeded. When our kids are watching the news, we need to help them recognize why one term is chosen over another, and how the reporter uses words to shape our views, whether it's gay activism or modern terrorists.

In a world that pretends not to know the difference between hate speech and legitimate arguments, we must be ever-vigilant against those who twist language to suit their purposes—purposes often designed to silence and deceive.


Get links to further information on today's topic

For printer-friendly version, simply visit www.breakpoint.org and click on Today's Commentary. The printer-friendly link is on the left-hand column.

Copyright (c) 2005 Prison Fellowship

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. "

Post
#130904
Topic
Objective Truth
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote

Originally posted by: JediSage
Anyone who makes a "value" judgement in today's society is branded as trying to force their beliefs and opinions on others. ie: When the pope declares the anti-life position as being wrong, he's denounced as being out of the mainstream, stuck in the dark ages.


Well, no one is forcing people to accept their ideas. It's up to the individual to agree or disagree with them. What is dangerous is the manipulation of the idea, changing facts so one could be misleeded to support a particular idea.


Agreed 100%.

Post
#130832
Topic
Objective Truth
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote

Originally posted by: JediSage
As someone said above, the leftist dominated media is good at force feeding the message: Whatever feels good is good for the person doing it, if you don't accept it and believe it to be right you're evil.


Hmnn... don't you think you're exagerating a little bit? I don't think the media enforces this particular dogma. Take the whole fast food issue, for example. The media is highly opposed to bad eating habbits, which is supposed to FEEL good but is not exactly a good thing. And I think no political consideration or opinion is related to that kind of thought.

Now, I only mentioned one crude example out of my mind right now, can you mention one to prove your statement?


I should clarify that when I say "media", I'm not talking of the "news media" or the "print media" in particular, however I'm talking about the majority of media, the bulk of media, including television, and movie production media.

Anyone who makes a "value" judgement in today's society is branded as trying to force their beliefs and opinions on others. ie: When the pope declares the anti-life position as being wrong, he's denounced as being out of the mainstream, stuck in the dark ages.

Post
#130742
Topic
BSG
Time
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
BACK TO TOPIC.

LAST NIGHTS EPISODE SEEMED REALLY SHORT TO ME FOR SOME REASON. I GUESS ANYTHING GOOD WILL SEEM LIKE IT ENDS PREMATURELY. I CAN'T WAIT FOR STARBUCK TO SHOW UP WITH THE ARROW.


This show is the best on TV right now. Excellent, excellent show. Olmos looks like hell, though, and I think the guy who plays the chief needs to be neutered(sp?).

Post
#130741
Topic
Objective Truth
Time
Quote

Originally posted by: Nanner Split
All of the truths to which we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view.


Hi. Been away since I started this thread.

Anyhoo...reducing truth to a matter of perception is the same as saying there is no truth. For if we all possess truth, how can anyone be right about anything? Perceptions and point of view are a zero-sum game...everyone's got a different one. Like the song by Buffalo Springfield says: Nobody's right, if everybody's wrong. As someone said above, the leftist dominated media is good at force feeding the message: Whatever feels good is good for the person doing it, if you don't accept it and believe it to be right you're evil.
Post
#129205
Topic
Comics Fans
Time
Originally posted by: Han Solo VS Indiana Jones
So... is anyone looking forward to the Flash movie I hear's slated to come out next year?


I'm looking forward to it as long as it's not the Flash 90210/Smallville version. He's always been a favorite, so it'll be good to see him get the big screen treatment. Have you ever seen the tv series that was on in the early 90's? I thought it was pretty darn good.