Posts during October 2012 for RabidChoco

Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register for Free

Disney buys LucasFilms, Star Wars VII coming.
Posted: Oct 30 2012, 07:47 PM Forum Act III: Entertainment Ocean View full topic
Well, on the other hand; speaking as a sort-of Disney insider, I can tell you that Disney and Lucas have been pretty tight for some time now, possibly longer than I've been alive. (I mean, how else does one explain Captain EO?) From my view, I'm not surprised this has happened, as Star Wars and Indiana Jones have had ride presence in the Disney Parks, too. In fact, now that it's happened, I'm left wondering, what took it so long? However, hearing about these plans to release Star Wars movies semi-regularly makes me worry that the franchise will become even more of a cash-cow than it is now.

Disney buys LucasFilms, Star Wars VII coming.

Posted: Oct 30 2012, 07:47 PM Forum Act III: Entertainment Ocean View full topic

Well, on the other hand; speaking as a sort-of Disney insider, I can tell you that Disney and Lucas have been pretty tight for some time now, possibly longer than I've been alive. (I mean, how else does one explain Captain EO?) From my view, I'm not surprised this has happened, as Star Wars and Indiana Jones have had ride presence in the Disney Parks, too. In fact, now that it's happened, I'm left wondering, what took it so long?

However, hearing about these plans to release Star Wars movies semi-regularly makes me worry that the franchise will become even more of a cash-cow than it is now.

The 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Posted: Oct 30 2012, 06:04 AM Forum Act I: Chit-Chat Hangout View full topic
Okay, fair enough. I obviously can't make a coherent argument (despite that having never been my intention). We all hold the candidates to a double standard. I mean, you're painting Romney as a Mormon theocrat who'll push against the grain on what I'm still pretty sure are toxic issues; while ignoring that Obama's as guilty as any other officeholder at pushing his beliefs down the gullet of federal statutes. You may well be right, I'll give you that, but at this point, I'm convinced that everything wrong with the federal government is exactly that: the federal government.

The 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Posted: Oct 30 2012, 06:04 AM Forum Act I: Chit-Chat Hangout View full topic

Okay, fair enough. I obviously can't make a coherent argument (despite that having never been my intention). We all hold the candidates to a double standard. I mean, you're painting Romney as a Mormon theocrat who'll push against the grain on what I'm still pretty sure are toxic issues; while ignoring that Obama's as guilty as any other officeholder at pushing his beliefs down the gullet of federal statutes. You may well be right, I'll give you that, but at this point, I'm convinced that everything wrong with the federal government is exactly that: the federal government.

The 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Posted: Oct 29 2012, 06:20 PM Forum Act I: Chit-Chat Hangout View full topic
Hazama Oct 29 2012, 06:18 PM -Leaves this here- I really don't feel like typing out my views and opinions on both parties but my honest political view is that America would be a lot better if instead of the two parties trying to fight each other, they came together to actually provide solutions for America instead of themselves. Admittedly, that's pretty hard to do when there are vastly conflicting views on the role of the federal government.

The 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Posted: Oct 29 2012, 06:20 PM Forum Act I: Chit-Chat Hangout View full topic

Hazama
Oct 29 2012, 06:18 PM
-Leaves this here-

I really don't feel like typing out my views and opinions on both parties but my honest political view is that America would be a lot better if instead of the two parties trying to fight each other, they came together to actually provide solutions for America instead of themselves.

Admittedly, that's pretty hard to do when there are vastly conflicting views on the role of the federal government.

The Energetic Spirit ShiningStar!
Posted: Oct 29 2012, 04:15 PM Forum Act II: Newbie Resort View full topic
Well aren't you an interesting individual. I go, all over the place, as "RabidChoco," or as a major character in whatever game I'm obsessed with at the moment. (Today's is the guy from La-Mulana.) Amateur RPer, and stuff like that. You have fun; if you have any good RP-story ideas, check out our local chapter of Organization XIII, or hash it out with any prospective players. Yeah, I don't even know. Guess I'll go see about finding that Secret Treasure of Life...

The Energetic Spirit *ShiningStar*!

Posted: Oct 29 2012, 04:15 PM Forum Act II: Newbie Resort View full topic

Well aren't you an interesting individual. I go, all over the place, as "RabidChoco," or as a major character in whatever game I'm obsessed with at the moment. (Today's is the guy from La-Mulana.) Amateur RPer, and stuff like that.

You have fun; if you have any good RP-story ideas, check out our local chapter of Organization XIII, or hash it out with any prospective players.

Yeah, I don't even know. Guess I'll go see about finding that Secret Treasure of Life...

The 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Posted: Oct 29 2012, 12:48 PM Forum Act I: Chit-Chat Hangout View full topic
Bowie Oct 29 2012, 08:40 AM Also Kosugi the whole line is.. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .... It is a WALL... Separation of Church and state means a separation from the state concerning religious affairs and conversely a separation from religion in the state's affairs.. this was due to the fact that Americans had already fled a Europe that was under heavy religious control, and while they may have wanted to still be religious they didn't want religious doctrine dictating our policy because we are NOT a Theocracy.. it goes both ways when you read it in context... Kind of bugs me when people say it is only meant to keep religion safe when that is only half of it. I'm not seeing it. Although I'll grant that the converse logically follows as an effect of the former. I can't really fault you when your line of reasoning is eerily similar to mine. But here is what infuriates me about the "church and state" debate: it's that it's oversimplified that "church" = "morality", and is then held to a double standard. Outlawing abortion is a "religious" thing? Then so must be legalizing it. Opposition to gay marriage is unconstitutional according to the First Amendment? Then so must be explicitly supporting it. And so, my conclusion on the matter of church and state is this: as far as primarily moral issues go, the federal government needs to keep them entirely out of federal lawmaking. I'm not gonna argue the birth control/abortion crap, but seriously, KC, on foreign policy? Within the past two months, Al-Qaeda just attacked one of our embassies and killed an ambassador. And he's blamed an anti-Muslim film trailer made in America and put up on YouTube. ~~So much for freedom of speech and religion.~~ Or miscommunications among his advisors. And we haven't so much as attempted to apprehend those responsible.

The 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Posted: Oct 29 2012, 12:48 PM Forum Act I: Chit-Chat Hangout View full topic

Bowie
Oct 29 2012, 08:40 AM
Also Kosugi the whole line is..

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....

It is a WALL... Separation of Church and state means a separation from the state concerning religious affairs and conversely a separation from religion in the state's affairs.. this was due to the fact that Americans had already fled a Europe that was under heavy religious control, and while they may have wanted to still be religious they didn't want religious doctrine dictating our policy because we are NOT a Theocracy.. it goes both ways when you read it in context... Kind of bugs me when people say it is only meant to keep religion safe when that is only half of it.

I'm not seeing it. Although I'll grant that the converse logically follows as an effect of the former. I can't really fault you when your line of reasoning is eerily similar to mine.
But here is what infuriates me about the "church and state" debate: it's that it's oversimplified that "church" = "morality", and is then held to a double standard. Outlawing abortion is a "religious" thing? Then so must be legalizing it. Opposition to gay marriage is unconstitutional according to the First Amendment? Then so must be explicitly supporting it.
And so, my conclusion on the matter of church and state is this: as far as primarily moral issues go, the federal government needs to keep them entirely out of federal lawmaking.

I'm not gonna argue the birth control/abortion crap, but seriously, KC, on foreign policy? Within the past two months, Al-Qaeda just attacked one of our embassies and killed an ambassador. And he's blamed an anti-Muslim film trailer made in America and put up on YouTube. ~~So much for freedom of speech and religion.~~ Or miscommunications among his advisors. And we haven't so much as attempted to apprehend those responsible.

The 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Posted: Oct 28 2012, 02:16 PM Forum Act I: Chit-Chat Hangout View full topic
Bowie Oct 28 2012, 01:14 PM Lemeza Kosugi Oct 27 2012, 03:41 PM You have a problem with Romney potentially putting his beliefs into federal law? Why does nobody have a problem with Obama doing the same thing? The big difference is that the typical conservative beliefs people have problems with are the religious ones they try to cram down everyone's throats despite a CLEAR definition of separation of church and state as laid out by our forefathers. President Obama has never tried to force religiously based social legislation down the throat of the American people, he's not like the tea party congressmen who are trying to push our party to Theocracy using Romney as a mild proxy in that way. Well, I got two responses here. Firstly, your "CLEAR definition," while it exists, is not what you think it is. The First Amendment prohibits, (among all those other things) Congress from making a law concerning "an establishment of religion". What that MEANS is, they can't make it illegal to be Muslim, Jewish, atheist or so on. That's it. Secondly: Romney's still a politician like any other. While he's publicly making a moral stand, I honestly don't think he'll push for any laws to impose his morals on the people. And as a tangent for my tangent: These social issues shouldn't be the concern of the federal government anyway.

The 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Posted: Oct 28 2012, 02:16 PM Forum Act I: Chit-Chat Hangout View full topic

Bowie
Oct 28 2012, 01:14 PM
Lemeza Kosugi
Oct 27 2012, 03:41 PM

You have a problem with Romney potentially putting his beliefs into federal law? Why does nobody have a problem with Obama doing the same thing?

The big difference is that the typical conservative beliefs people have problems with are the religious ones they try to cram down everyone's throats despite a CLEAR definition of separation of church and state as laid out by our forefathers.

President Obama has never tried to force religiously based social legislation down the throat of the American people, he's not like the tea party congressmen who are trying to push our party to Theocracy using Romney as a mild proxy in that way.

Well, I got two responses here. Firstly, your "CLEAR definition," while it exists, is not what you think it is. The First Amendment prohibits, (among all those other things) Congress from making a law concerning "an establishment of religion". What that MEANS is, they can't make it illegal to be Muslim, Jewish, atheist or so on. That's it.

Secondly: Romney's still a politician like any other. While he's publicly making a moral stand, I honestly don't think he'll push for any laws to impose his morals on the people.

And as a tangent for my tangent: These social issues shouldn't be the concern of the federal government anyway.

The 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Posted: Oct 27 2012, 03:41 PM Forum Act I: Chit-Chat Hangout View full topic
Fenroar Oct 27 2012, 03:30 PM Yeah, I'm with the majority in this topic. I'm voting for Obama. I'm not sure if I'm all in for Obama, but Cy pretty much nailed it for me. I just can't stand Romney's stance on many social issues, and find myself wanting to punch anybody who's voting for him simply because "he's not Obama." Like some people stated, I'm actually scared what Romney would do as president. I'm scared he would try to force his beliefs onto us. I'm pretty sure, regardless of whomever's President, that they can't effectively do that. In principle, I am against the legislation of any morality. (AKA, the "social issues") My impression: Obama's been trying to do just that. I mean, seriously, the words he uses. You have a problem with Romney potentially putting his beliefs into federal law? Why does nobody have a problem with Obama doing the same thing?

The 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

Posted: Oct 27 2012, 03:41 PM Forum Act I: Chit-Chat Hangout View full topic

Fenroar
Oct 27 2012, 03:30 PM
Yeah, I'm with the majority in this topic. I'm voting for Obama. I'm not sure if I'm all in for Obama, but Cy pretty much nailed it for me. I just can't stand Romney's stance on many social issues, and find myself wanting to punch anybody who's voting for him simply because "he's not Obama." Like some people stated, I'm actually scared what Romney would do as president. I'm scared he would try to force his beliefs onto us.

I'm pretty sure, regardless of whomever's President, that they can't effectively do that. In principle, I am against the legislation of any morality. (AKA, the "social issues") My impression: Obama's been trying to do just that. I mean, seriously, the words he uses.

You have a problem with Romney potentially putting his beliefs into federal law? Why does nobody have a problem with Obama doing the same thing?

The 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Posted: Oct 26 2012, 02:56 PM Forum Act I: Chit-Chat Hangout View full topic
Really, not hearing anything new from Obama, and I haven't fully forgiven Romney for beating out Gingrich and Cain in the primaries. But imo, politics has been a mockery since the media started focusing on celebs, if not since the invention of the television.

'The Skaro Halls' Sign-up sheet
Posted: Oct 25 2012, 02:40 PM Forum Schoolhouse Garden View full topic
Alright, edited the earlier post with a profile.

'The Skaro Halls' Sign-up sheet
Posted: Oct 25 2012, 07:52 AM Forum Schoolhouse Garden View full topic
Interesting... Name: Jude Hiss Age: 20 Gender: Male Weapons: Primarily, a sniper rifle. Devices: Mostly reconnaissance gear, like binoculars and night-vision. Interests: (how is this relevant?) Weapons design, theoretical physics, and landscape photography Likes and dislikes: (as above) Likes travelling, regardless of reason. Dislikes getting shot at, and being compared to his father. Beliefs: (State quotes): "It doesn't matter. If you don't make your own choices, what's the point of living?" Home planet: Not known... Species: Human

'The Skaro Halls' Sign-up sheet

Posted: Oct 25 2012, 07:52 AM Forum Schoolhouse Garden View full topic

Interesting...

Name: Jude Hiss
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Weapons: Primarily, a sniper rifle.
Devices: Mostly reconnaissance gear, like binoculars and night-vision.
Interests: (how is this relevant?) Weapons design, theoretical physics, and landscape photography
Likes and dislikes: (as above) Likes travelling, regardless of reason. Dislikes getting shot at, and being compared to his father.
Beliefs: (State quotes): "It doesn't matter. If you don't make your own choices, what's the point of living?"
Home planet: Not known...
Species: Human

The Last to Post Wins!
Posted: Oct 10 2012, 09:38 AM Forum Act IV: Casino Park View full topic
-throws shuriken at RD- Yeah, no, I'll just take this... -whip-

UN Internet regulations?
Posted: Oct 9 2012, 07:11 PM Forum Act I: Chit-Chat Hangout View full topic
So I've heard that there's basically a treaty due for signing in December that functionally gives the United Nations control of the Internet. I've been surfing around, finding a few reaction articles, but nothing really on what will be in the agreement... Article 1 Article 2 I mean, depending on how the UN works like this, this might not be good news for our international users... >.> Anyone got anything more concrete about this?

UN Internet regulations?

Posted: Oct 9 2012, 07:11 PM Forum Act I: Chit-Chat Hangout View full topic

So I've heard that there's basically a treaty due for signing in December that functionally gives the United Nations control of the Internet. I've been surfing around, finding a few reaction articles, but nothing really on what will be in the agreement...

Article 1

Article 2

I mean, depending on how the UN works like this, this might not be good news for our international users... >.>

Anyone got anything more concrete about this?

The 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Posted: Oct 9 2012, 06:49 PM Forum Act I: Chit-Chat Hangout View full topic
Yeah, just... to hell with politics. All that said, I feel our current President has had a number of lapses in judgment, so giving him another term doesn't feel like a good idea to me. ~~On a tangential note, has anybody heard anything concrete about a UN treaty concerning the Internet?~~

What Are You Playing?
Posted: Oct 9 2012, 11:21 AM Forum Act II: Video Game Station View full topic
I'm playing a little indie thing called "La-Mulana". Kinda like a side-scrolling Legend of Zelda game... if Link were an Indiana Jones stand-in. It's not exactly... easy.