BTGBullseye

My computer glitches when seeding.

Until you're old enough to drink, I have no advice on stress. Once you're old enough, my advice is don't drink too much.

I have no idea.

It was just that all 4 were available on Netflix, and I was curious. (I've always liked the original, and the idea that in order to gain the right to vote you have to have some military service)

I'm not attacking an anti-war movement, I'm defending people being attacked by people who are 'anti-war'.

Except that the 7 state's constitutions state only that someone must believe in God, not that they must be a specific religion. The problem that always ends up happening (and is right now) is that when atheists are in charge they actively try to remove religion of any other kind from any form of visibility. Christians tend to discourage, yes, but they don't fight tooth and nail to kill every other religion. Also, as it is in state legislature and state constitutions, it technically is overridden by the US Constitution. Unless they secede from the Union, those 'laws' can never be applied. Your opinion is to give specific wording over more useful generalized wording? Seems perfectly illogical to me. I would if they could find a way to do so, but since this country is on the path to following the letter of the law to the exclusion of the spirit of the law... As far as I can tell you're one of those type of people that would rather have specific words to follow than an idea. So who is this 'comfortably dominant majority faith'? You seem to be attributing a lot towards it. Don't say 'Christians', as that covers well over 100 different denominations in this country. (and most of them are non-hostile to opposing religions) And most of those have read nothing of what the founding fathers wrote afterwards that explained the meaning of the words. The few who have, ignored it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - Says it all. Making it illegal to say a prayer out loud in a public location would be a violation of this, as would making a prayer mandatory. It does not prohibit religious influences from being displayed on public grounds. A display of the ten commandments doesn't force people to follow them, as is evidenced by Christians that have sex outside of marriage, or that say "God damn", etc. What you and he fail to recognize is that the bible quite thoroughly says that God loves everyone equally... It does say that in the old testament that the Jews are his people of choice, but because they were just as, if not worse than the rest of the people of the world, he stopped giving his favor to them. (this is going off all Christian bibles here) This is where people say the country was built on Christian beliefs, because as far as I can tell, each and every one of the bill of rights was lifted from somewhere in the Christian bible, and belief system. (I can go into detail on most of them, but that is really something for another thread) Now are they actually Christian, or do they just say they are to get the Christian votes? That's the problem. Saying that 'the Christian majority' is being represented is very difficult to say accurately, with the majority of politicians saying many things that they will fight for once in office, which they then fight for the exact opposite of once in. (evidence: Obama. Just do a search for "Obama campaign lies") You're looking at it from a completely different way than I'm trying to show you. Every single benefit of marriage, (tax status, next of kin, power of attorney, etc.) excluding the official title of "married" is given to anyone who wants it, and it has been that way since before the 60's. (my parents remember people getting group 'marriages' this way in the early 60's) They are perfectly free to do that, but please don't change the meaning of words that haven't changed ever in recorded history, simply to try and make homosexual unions 'acceptable'. In order to be considered a middle of the road person in the US, you have to be leaning towards neo-liberalism... I do agree with that assessment. Which is unfortunate, since that isn't actually middle of the road. That it does. My family has direct experience with forced unions... They forced my uncle to quit a good paying job with great benefits for a crappy (literally, dealing with pigs) job with no benefits, just because he didn't have enough saved to live off of for the duration of the forced strike. (all over a $0.25 raise that he didn't care about) A forced union is bad in general. I'm not saying completely remove all taxes, but 50% is considered very high by anyone that has done research on taxes. The sweet spot is somewhere between 30% and 40%. (though I personally would like to see it down nearer the 15% mark) So if nobody else in the area carries birth control, you have to violate your religious principles, rearrange your store to carry a new product, (limiting space available for other products) and invest money into a product that may or may not sell? Not only is it unconstitutional, it's forcing bad business practices. It's unfortunate that no matter which you vote for, you get the same thing. It's been that way since the 90's. Very true. So am I, as this really isn't the thread we should be having constitutional debates in.

Sleepy.

It was a browser fail... It didn't have another page when I responded. I get to answer my own question!!! Sun tea. And I'll ask it again, because WTFN. Sun tea or Arizona Iced Tea?

Computer fans, the sound of the keys on my keyboard being depressed and released rapidly, and my stomach complaining that I had the wrong combination of ingredients for dinner.

Sleeping upright in my chair while typing. Heading to bed soon.

It's really just assholes that want to find something that they can legally use as a basis for discrimination. (and it happens on every side) All in all, it sucks for those of use that aren't looking to have hostilities.

I used to have a mower from the early 70's... Power drive, 5HP, pull string start... Custom blades... I could eat trees up to ¾ inch with that thing. I made $45/hr in the summer mowing lawns in the neighborhood. (the greenest part of Sioux Falls, SD residential area) I averaged $200/week during the summer, and I was only 9 years old. (I even paid rent to my parents at that point)

No, it's the third, they just know you're going to sneak one when you're not looking.

Well if we need to find people to fight... There's a thread that had some people that would probably be good at it, many of whom were attacked for their opinion about war. (hint hint) I wonder why people complain about not getting enough people to fight the bad guys after attacking people for not being pacifists.[/sarcasm]

Yeah, well... It won't be me! I didn't read it! You can't prove I did!

I remember some of those as well, now that you mention them. I agree with your assesment of those instances. I can definitely support that sentiment. If the majority decided that they wanted everyone in office to be a person of faith, then that's the right of the people. It's no different than putting a minimum age limit on being a candidate for the presidency. (that age limit is 35 years old BTW) That's equivalent to saying that for a time there was nothing prohibiting discrimination against blue people with a limp. Anti-discrimination came about all around the same time, and almost everyone that wasn't a (non-Irish) white male of at least 35 years of age was discriminated against in some form. (and in reality, they still discriminate, except now they just find legal fake reasons to discriminate, like 'overqualified') Naturally... Specifying only certain areas of discrimination leaves the door open for huge discrimination of any and everyone else, "because the law says it's only those groups we can't discriminate against". What most people seem to not get is that there is no such thing as "separation of church and state" in the constitution... What it says in the first amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Nowhere in that does it say anything about religious symbols on public property. There are an awful lot of people that don't really know what the words say, much less mean. The meaning of the part about religion was to prevent the government from interfering with religions like Britain did. The Church of England was appropriated so that the King had complete and total authority over the religion, even to the point of outlawing other religions as blasphemy. The founding fathers didn't want that to happen, so they put that wording in. It wasn't an accident that they didn't say that religion wasn't allowed to interfere with the government. A lot of people take sides without realizing what exactly they are or aren't fighting for. Homosexuals have had the ability to have every single benefit of marriage, except for the title, for a very long time. Marriage (until recently in some states) was always defined as 1 man, 1 woman. (other than polygamy, [1 man, multiple women] which was outlawed in the USA a very long time ago as well) The entire fight was over changing the definition of a word that has not had it's meaning changed in thousands of years. (always been between heterosexual men and women) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage Why they felt the need to change the meaning of a word? I'd say that P.C. movement you're against so much had quite some influence. And we have a thread for that in another forum. It is indeed, but even so, it's still being perverted from what its real meaning is. The right is the neo-liberal side... A.K.A. the US version of liberal. (the left and right are switched in the US as well as the terms describing them) http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif In other words, governments are pretty much the same everywhere... Authoritarian shitholes that want to control your life. They may or may not be... All evidence points to them using no bias when making the compass though. Which left are you speaking of now? The US version, or the rest-of-the-world version? I would certainly hope unions would be in decline. 90% of them do nothing at all beneficial for their members, and just sit there and forcibly take dues out of employee's paychecks. (I see it as synonymous to the mafia's 'protection' money shakedowns) Taxes have pretty well been blamed for declining economies across the globe for decades, and there is proof to back that up. (the businesses and rich move out of countries that tax them, leaving nothing but the impoverished and broken economies) So you think that there should be legal regulations that say that privately owned Christian businesses, and Christian hospitals should have to violate their beliefs, just because someone doesn't want to go to a different location, or a store to get their damn birth control? That is quite obviously a violation of the first amendment. (and the supreme court agrees) Forgotten the political compass already I see... They're all in the center of the authoritarian neo-liberal quadrant, if that's what you mean. There are idiots all along the spectrum. Most likely... There is a large percentage of people in this country that are just trying to get away from the guy that gave away a trillion dollars to companies, just so they could go bankrupt anyways, and who happened to be the same guy that put a 4 trillion dollar 'free' healthcare bill through in record time, that actually fines people through taxes far more than having health insurance ever would. (I could get into more detail, but that's something for another thread) Most can't... It goes against what the media and all the US liberals are saying in the strongest possible way. (again, something really for another topic)

Star Trek Online.

Complete.

Cool Ranch, no question. Best chip on the planet. Sun tea or Arizona Iced Tea?

"Happy. Sad. Dismayed. Huffy. Yearning, Jubilant. Distraught. Seductive. Petulant. Blissful. Frustrated. Raving. Sullen. Elated. Demure. Fretful. Delirious. Naughty. Whimsical. Sassy. Hypercritical. Serene. Blasé. Haughty. Spunky. Ashamed. Brooding. Intoxicated. Tingly. Seething. Goofy. Sulky. Contented. Frolicsome. Sarcastic. Abashed. Woeful. Giddy. Contrary. Grumpish. Overjoyed. Mopy. Prissy. Bitter. Prickly. Flippant. Smug. Amiable. Infuriated. Morose. Perky. Testy. Lackadaisical. Touchy. Cranky. Itchy. Lovelorn. Frisky. Perturbed. Listless. Resentful. Lonesome. Glum. Disturbed. Pleased. Peevish. Cocky. Unhinged. Mirthless. Jaded. Enraptured. Doleful. Inscrutable. Lustful. Jolly. Disgruntled. Surprised. Surprised. Surprised. Surprised." (yes, I looked at each and every frame)

Starship Troopers - 8/10 - A classic. B+ or A- movie that gained a cult following. Starship Troopers 2 - 5/10 - It had some very good actors that were severely hampered by the script. Appeared to be an attempt to turn Starship Troopers into Pitch Black. Starship Troopers 3 - 3/10 - Nothing but making fun of, and dissing religion from what I can tell. Starship Troopers Invasion - 7.6/10 - Much better writing than 2/3, but the animation left quite a bit to be desired. (the voice acting was decent though)

Computer fans, and my Mom trying to be quiet so as to hide the fact that she knows I'm up until 4:30AM so she can use it against me later.

Heading to bed.

That would depend on your insurance... Most don't. Mower propelled stones are the biggest source of broken glass on stationary buildings.

Who wants cookies?