Justice

OHL Playoffs are on now, so I don't really care. Tomorrow Ottawa should get done mopping up the Colts. Manning always fucking chokes.

I know they don't like each other, I was trying to get over that they knew they'd have to at least work together sometimes to stop me and Pretzler from entirely owning the match. In the end, your inability to work as a team is what allowed us to get the win. I read this over as well and that was my take on the entire thing: Past indiscretions aside, they needed to stay together for either of them to have a fighting chance at this, which is why they worked together. Hell, even Judge has worked with people he didn't want to (Kris is the one that comes to mind back in the TLC) to just have a chance at winning.

Indeed. His training of Grevious is perhaps one of the more interesting scenes in the series. Calm, completely collected, egging him on for more. I really, really liked it a lot. Edit: Also the vision that Anakin has in the second to last episode. That was incredibly well-played how it occurred.

I think he wanted the rest of the Middle East to believe he had them, to thwart any attempted invasions, however the minute it looked like America was thinking about going to war, it seemed pretty evident that he didn't actually have them. He was still a threat to the enter stability of the Middle East, whether it or not he had them. A man committing with a bank robbery with a convincing replica is committing robbery just the same as a man with a real gun. There's no point in second guessing with information we didn't have previously.

Oh, I'm so going to get you for that one.

I never said I would do anything useful, this is just an excellent place to flex my very small amount of power.

Whoa. Talk about out of left field.

Part of me really wants to abuse my forum-specific mod powers, but... naw.

If I have any one qualm with the entire thing, is that it looks like it has literally no wrestling involved in it at all. I mean, I like RPing when I'm building myself up or building up a match, but frankly, this is American Idol, only with self-masturbation it seems replacing singing. I had an RP made up where Judge goes, gives them a resume, gives them a little interview, and (God help us all) actually does a tryout match. I'm still debating on finishing it up and putting in the running, but looking at a few of the characters there (Frankly, Deja Vu was a far, far funnier version of the "Wanna-be Wrestler" guy they have, and a few of them are just too cliche 'dark' for my tastes. ) I'm all for RP feds, because in the end, they have matches or something related to wrestling. If I wanted to diss someone all day, I'd write up crappy raps or something. The only real reason I really like writing wrestling matches is because it's basically a very unique form of conflict-resolution: Few books or stories have their characters always being put into a form of resolution involving physical conflict. In wrestling, it's the most preferred and most used. Fight scenes are damned fun to write, and that's probably why I wrote for as long as I did.

I somehow feel responsible for this.

You get a gold star if you can make a Judge one. By the by, I love the Johnny one. Dunno why, but just like it a ton.

Judge = Teh drunkz0rs. That's all that needs to be said here.

I feel so very sad that I killed my character off with an aborted plotline. I could RP the fuck out of these guys.

Dude, I posted the match.

Incapacitated my ass.

He could have been lying to psyche-out Luke. Maybe he saw nothing but only pretended to? I always thought that he realized that while the Death Star would have been destroyed, he and Luke (His new apprentice) would still be able to get out and escape no matter what. If they had lived, with Luke turned, that would have taken a keystone figure out of the Alliance and brought about its downfall.

I think the problem is that we are new as well. People are new to our storylines, our style, our characters. I'll bet as time goes on, we'll continue to move up the charts towards #1.

Agreed. I know a Div 3 (Yeah, I go to a small school) school called Tri-State in Indiana whose offense COMPLETELY revolves around scoring three pointers and playing full court press defense. It is the most utterly alien thing to watch: They have to score like, 20 three pointers a game, yet they lack ANY sort of offensive penetration. They have trouble with layups.

*shakes head* But in all seriousness... This is stupidity. With this suggestion, complete Judicial Gridlock occurs. Seriously, that's what is asked for here. People might think that this thing would be restricted for 'controversial' judges, but 'controversial' can be put on anyone who might disagree with one key question, like abortion or gun rights or gay marriage. With the ultra-polarized political field we have going right now, do you honestly think either side will give up a chance at the biggest trump card in the land? Regardless of side, Boxer and anyone who is for this does not forsee the consequences of this at all.

Instant classic thread.

I thought that one was about the pledge, not about the currency. You are correct sir. The one on the pledge was thrown out because she wasn't technically his kid. The "In God We Trust" one was simply thrown out, I believe (It's certainly not related to custody since it doesn't concern just children). Anyways, Special K has made my point. There is no endorsement in "In God we Trust". The suggestion of the possibility of a higher power (Hence, in God we Trust) doesn't actively or even passively benefit anyone. It the establishment of any sort of religion (Thanks for posting it so much, RJ, maybe actually reading would be a good course of action now). It's vague enough and lacks the meaning to be any sort of offense to the 1st Amendment. Oh, RJ, it's nice to ignore my argument to say " Again, for those of you out there who are against it: 1) Show us the active benefit it gives to (a) religion(s). 2) Show us the passive benefit it gives (a) religion(s). 3) Show us how it establishes an enforced religion upon the citizenry. Otherwise you lack an argument. Time and time again, this is what is required for making a case for a 1st Amendment Violation. Just to repeat: I'm not in favor of putting up a monument to the 10 Commandments up in a courtroom. A little, innocuous plaque? You can argue it, maybe. But not an actual monument. I only find this bitching about petty things like "In God We Trust" is exactly the stupid shit that so many people like to bring up and concentrate on when they don't realize how fucking unbalancing it is and how against the spirit of the Constitution it is. The 1st Amendment is there not to abolish any place where belief and politics might clash. It's there to prevent anyone having a religion forced upon someone else. Perhaps you want to banish the Chaplain from Congress because it has a possible religious connotation?

Okay, isn't this enough to prove he truly is a joke? I mean, seriously. He believes the actual hype that Saddam put out about himself. Please, can't we just ban him and feel smarter?

Why on earth would something religious require any sort of validation beyond tolerance by the government? Because it's not tolerance to eliminate anything that might possibly have any chance of being construed as religious. Religion, like it or not, is inherent in our culture. Some references will occur naturally. Of course, some of them will obviously be wrong, there are some which lack the activity but give with them not only a representation of our roots, but even a deeper idea behind them that no longer involves religion. Why does Congress begin with a prayer? Is it because it is religious, or does it show that they are devoted to a higher ideal, held to a higher power (The People), which is represented by taking such an oath. Tolerance is not eliminating any and every reference to God. Tolerance is understanding what we can allow to stay and what we can't.

... Uh, no, she's arguing that many obiquous references to God found in government are generally harmless acts of tradition not meant at all to endorse a religion. Again, monotheism isn't a religion. You're seriously dense. What does the word 'God' matter if it isn't some sort of prayer or other praising fashion, what does it matter? Secondly, it doesn't ban 'government recognition' of religion. It bans the sponsor of religion that actively or passively benefits one religion over another, as it is in it's current form. The references above do neither. Just mentioning "God" does not inherently make something religious. The problem is it no longer serves that function. If you actually read what he said, it's no longer recognized as an act praising God, but something that lacks that meaning. Souter is right: It's no longer a prayer or recognition of a 'God' but more of an Affirmation of civic duty. With "In God We Trust", it now forms more of a trust in our own actions and the American Spirit than a literal belief in God. Are you getting this, or do we have to play in the shallow end of the pool still? You do know that Scalia holds a much stronger view of what they just said, right? Perhaps you can point out, then, the clause where "In God We Trust" leads to compulsory church services? Or name the established religion of the United States? If you've read the Constitution, you'd realize that half the stuff you are exposing isn't even in there. Ooooooookay. Sure you are. You are simply asking for an abolition of any sort of religious reference in government. That's not both sides of the coin, that's fairly anti-religious. You have to understand that not everything involving "God" is necessarily religious, nor that something taken from the bible (The 10 Commandments) is necessarily meant as a religious reference (JotW brings up the original and acceptable reason of historical references). You are determinedly anti-religious. I'll say I was wrong on Ray Moore when he started saying "This is because we are a Christian Nation". In the current case we are talking about: 1) No national religion has been established. 2) No one's free exercise has been prohibited. Where's the problem?

I agree with many of the points you make, though I'm not so sure "under God" still carries that meaning. It's become so diluted, plus the fact that you don't need to say it, has made it pretty much harmless.